Ideas for making ganking less prevalent

First off, I want to say that I don’t think a pure PvE server (as suggested elsewhere) would work because of how the economy works in EVE. We need the constant destruction of assets to drive up the demand for production. With that said, not every player likes the PvP aspect very much. They are content with trading, exploring, building things and engaging in the occasional battle against PvE pirates.

I’ve read posts here by many who thinks that if PvP isn’t your cup of tea, you probably should play some other MMO. The problem is that the thing that drew me into EVE initially was the player driven economy. Not many other MMO’s have that. I haven’t found any, at least.

I’m very put-off by being ganked. I hate it, in fact, and I think it ruins much of the game, when I’m too afraid to go to low-sec for that reason. A big portion of the game is thus effectively blocked for me. I have two proposed solutions that I think would appease both PvP lovers and those of us who aren’t here primarily for fighting other players.

Solution 1: Have players choose at the character creation one of three “danger levels”:

  • Completely safe – you can’t ever be attacked by other players and neither attack other players (other than perhaps if you’re with a corporation that’s in a war).
  • Mostly safe – you can only be attacked by and attack others who are withing a certain SP range from you, for example +/- 20 % (average of all your characters). This won’t completely prevent PvP but it will level out the playing field.
  • No guard rails – as it is now. Free for all. The only prohibiting factor here is security forces in hi-sec.

By having players set this at character creation prevents them from setting to safe whenever they fear resistance and then put on no guard rails when they themselves has the upper hand. Perhaps players should be able to change the setting once every month or something like that.

I think there would be enough players who enjoy PvP that the economy would still function.

Solution 2: If you attack a player with much less SP than you (see the previous solution), you’re forced to fully compensate the loss of ship, modules, cargo etc. to the player you attacked.

This will disincentivize ganking, since the only thing you’ll gain is a kill count. There will still be players who would enjoy ganking anyway, but the ganked player would at least not having to be economically damaged by the behaviour.

Before the others start to reply–my guess is this thread will not go well for you–I want to give you my experience as a player not looking to actively engage in PvP as an aggressor.

I like PvP insofar as I enjoy avoiding it. Other than cloaky campers (it seems to me the only way to avoid this is to just not go places they “might” be), it’s pretty easy to avoid being killed most of the time as long as you’re careful and don’t put a big target on your back. I actually think things like mining and exploration would be kind of boring if there wasn’t this constant low-level tension of “might get wrecked.”

I would decide whether or not this is something you’re good with, because I think that it’s highly unlikely to change any time soon.


What you don’t get is that the player driven economy is only possible because of the full time pvp sandbox.

If players can choose to be totally safe, then ALL industry and ratting players will be so, and only pvp alts will be vulnerable.

The ‘relative sp’ idea is also un-workable. I can train a mining fleet with relatively low sp investment per char and minimise my exposure whilst making pretty much the same isk as i do now. I can go into null sec and steal the ore from other peoples moons but they can only attack me if they have another noob logged in?

And on the other end of the scale, ganking in catalysts doesn’t take much sp either. Ganking people im throw away ships remains unchanged.

In short;
Both ideas are unworkable. Understand that the player economy only works because the risk of non-consensual pvp is what gives value to items in the game.



This thread is going to end badly.

My simple contribution: Eve is a PvP centric game. If you want to play Eve you have to be ready to PvP, or run from it.


Such a setting should also imply: “cannot interact with player market (neither buy nor sell), contracts or do direct trades in any way or form; everything you jettison is instantly destroyed; cannot anchor anything”. Because otherwise it will disrupt “player driven economy” that you like so much.

Imagine fleet where logis have “fully safe” switch enabled… OR titan pilot jumping in the staging system of an opposing alliance and you cant kill it because of some stupid switch.


Thanks for all the replies! Having read other threads, I know I’m putting my hand in a hornet’s nest, but that’s okay as long as everyone conducts themselves in a constructive and friendly manner, as you guys have. Thanks!

I see your points and I tend to agree with them. That SP idea was just some measurement to differentiate players, but I’m sure that there are many things that are better.

You see, I haven’t so much problem with PvP per se, but it must be on somewhat equal terms. I don’t have a problem with getting blown out of the skies either, because that’s the risk you got to take. No pain, no gain.

What I do have a problem with, though, is ganking as in my most recent case, I warped in, saw five ships with far better equipment than me, and before I had time to even think about warping out, I was dead. That’s not a fair fight at all, and not what I call enjoyable PvP. You could definitely say that I was stupid to think that I went into low-sec at all if I didn’t want to be ganked, but I would probably have been way less salty by being killed if I at least had the chance to defend myself first.

I suspect that most people reading this thread will see me as a whiner and that I think I’m entitled to everyone playing the way I want, but that’s not the case. Perhaps EVE is not the right game for me. That’s okay, too. Every game don’t have to be for everybody. I just think it’s sad that people are pushed away from online gaming because of everything between ganking/bullying and straight out harassment (not experienced that in this game, but in other online games).

If the game was changed in a such a radical way to meet your wants, why shouldn’t it be changed again in a totally different way, for someone else’s wants?

What makes your preferences more important than anyone else’s?

That you have an issue doesn’t make it a problem that needs fixing for anyone but you and only you can solve your own problems. CCP can’t do it.

Some notes;

  • PvP in Eve is rarely ever a “fair fight”. It’s either who brought more ships, who’s fitting countered whos, or who laid a better ambush. Player skill deciding the outcome of the fight is a rare rare treat.
  • Low sec is a death zone. Either you will be murdered by a gate camp, roving PvP gang, or a hot dropped capital. if you enter, expect to die.
  • Pretty much any means you put to balance any of these things will be gamed by players. Eve players have an autistic level super power to take a well intention game mechanic and twist it into a weapon.

True. I’m not so delusional that I think I can dictate what the developers should do. This is a mere suggestion, nothing more. We’re in a forum called “Player Features & Ideas”, so I figured I’d post my ideas.

I haven’t said that my preferences are more important than for example yours.

1 Like

You’re much more level headed than most that post their ideas here.


Thanks! Yeah, I have seen that in other posts.

1 Like

Ganking and all the other skull duggery that goes on Is what makes eve interesting. Whilst you cannot avoid ganking, you can make yourself less of a target… I have a shuttle ganked and the pod killed in high sec for auto piloting because the attacker didn’t like auto pilot ships, but that is fine, i knew the risk and so minimised it by not having implants and having no cargo, i had 30+ jumps to go and didnt want to sit there doing it, i minimised my loss, but was aware of the risk

The only thing i personally dont like in game is malicious griefing, but all the ganking, corp thefts and what not needs to stay in game. just give yourself a bit of knowledge on how to avoid the thing you dont like.


8 golden rules of eve.

Fair fights as you see them isn’t what eve is about. The ‘fair fight’ started long before any shots were fired. It’s about the friends you make and the assets you wield. If someone is better at making friends and making money, is it unfair for them to use those resources in a fight? Not really.

Eve is a game with big fish and little fish. It’s an ecosystem.

We’re all feeding off smaller fish and trying not to be consumed by the bigger fish.


I’d like the op to explain to me why, a character who selects the no pvp option, should be allowed to effectively transport any value of isk in any ship, in any area of space?

Not only does this go against the very sandbox nature of eve, it would be so easy to game.

Every player would set up a new character with no pvp selected and ship anything of value around to where they need, on autopilot in complete safety.

Noone, should ever have that level of immunity. Not in highsec, null, low or WH.

Reading you’re other suggestion make me think you have really not got a grasp on the game.

There are 2 rules in eve.

Don’t trust anyone.
Don’t fly what you can’t afford to loose.

1 Like

As the others have mentioned, your suggestions would not work and maintain the aspect of EVE you enjoy (the economy).

There simply must be destruction for the economy to function.

I do want to address this point in particular:

I’m guessing you equate lower skill points with “new to the game”, if I’ve assumed incorrectly please disregard the following.

Having a lower skill point character does not automatically mean the player is inexperienced, i.e. new to the game. I once knew two very experienced players who rolled new characters, and at two million skill points war decced a corp of dozens of active players. They used vexors and started to blow up the ships of their opponents. They were seriously outnumbered by the opposition, and their characters had only two million skill points each, and in the end they won their “war”.

They did this to prove a point.

Now, my point in telling this story is this: character age, and number of skill points/character is in no way indicative of a player’s capability. In EVE experience counts, in ways you cannot imagine until you “run face first” into that experienced player.

So, your Solution 2, based on character skill points, is (I’m guessing) based on a faulty assumption.

and, as to this point:

In this instance you are using the work “ganking”, which has had whole forum threads dedicated to refining it’s exact definition as it is used in EVE, to refer to just losing a ship, either to a more experienced player/s, or greater numbers of players.

So, let me take this apart, bit by bit:

Not really. In fact, lots of experience players already compensate new players, if they shoot them. Older players, by and large, want to encourage new players to hang around. They remember how difficult it was to get started.

Kill count is enough. In fact EVE players can be very creative/vindictive in exacting their “revenge”. In this case I am speaking specifically of the individual who is offloading ventures in structures and contracting them over to progodlegend, and subsequently blowing all those ventures up. I think he’s up to forty or fifty pages of venture kills, on zkill, so far.

So, what he is doing is buying the ships he’s blowing up, delivering the ships he’s blowing up, giving all those ships to another player, and blowing those ships up once their loss will be “officially” recorded in the other player’s character’s name.

And this type of kill count warfare is not unique. So, kill count is enough.

I enjoy ganking (suicide ganking, sometimes) players with really offensive names, and blowing up rudely named citadels, too. Some players like claiming a system, so they’ll sit on a gate and blow everyone up coming through. Others like blowing up pods.

Many gank for the “mechanical” challenge, it is entirely impersonal.

And sometimes,

the gank is entirely personal. The ganker(s) want the gankee to suffer. Maybe the gankee is offensive in chat, maybe they stole something, maybe they are “hogging” all the ice…whatever, but it is very personal and economic inconvenience/compensation would have no effect whatsoever on the decision to gank or not.

EVE is a great game. You can make it your game, personalize it. You just have to take the time to learn the game.

The ship you lost was in Aunenen, a system which is somewhat of a hot spot for activity. Your attackers, at least one of them, frequents that system, blowing up ships a lot. Because you’re new to the game, or inexperienced, you didn’t know the reputation of either the system, and/or its inhabitants, if you hang around, continue to play EVE, and are interested…curious…you will learn.

You’ll learn things like don’t fly a freighter, to Jita, during Burn Jita. You’ll learn to use the map to look for pod kills, jumps per hour, and if you ultimately venture into nullsec, who holds sovereignty.

If EVE really gets into you blood, you’ll learn where the player pirates hang out, you’ll learn where players gate camp, and most importantly you’ll learn how to go around that gate camp to avoid it, and perhaps in the end, if you want the excitement, you’ll learn how to crash that gate camp and get away scott-free.


The player driven economy is driven almost exclusively by player ship losses of some sort. Think about what impact having certain players being 100% safe would have on that market. The demand for replacement ships, especially ones like mining ships and haulers, would drop precipitously. Likewise, mineral demand would drop and that would spread throughout the entire market.

So even from your own standpoint, your proposal is a bad idea.

Two problems here.

First, the total number of SPs necessary for a gank alt are considerably less than what is needed to fly a freighter. Your proposal wouldn’t discourage ganking.

Second, you’re offering some form of risk without any reward. If you get penalized for destroying a ship piloted by a player with less SPs than you, shouldn’t you also get rewarded for destroying a ship piloted by a player with more SPs than you? Couple that with my first point and you’d actually be incentivizing ganking with low SP alts because they’d be directly rewarded for their effort.

-1 all around. If you want to participate in the player-driven market, you have to participate fully. There’s no sitting on the sidelines.


EvE PvP combat is one of the best balanced you can get, it must be to work in a sandbox. What you perceive as unfair is just your lack of knowledge how to counter the situation.

Almost every aggressive act has a counter either let you escape or not coming in the situation in the first place.

Both roles, the predator and the prey are very fun to play. I know this because I do both. Also losing is part of the equation.

As an industrialist for making my living in EvE, there can’t be enough destruction and ganking.


welcome to the community !

as a 3-day old player , there’s many things you could be doing after this loss , other than suggesting changes to a game you don’t yet understand .

do your own ‘after action report’ and analyze where you went wrong , what you could have done better , could this loss have been avoided . get in a player corp you will learn faster and have more fun , try eve university …
have fun and never again plz call the loss of a 1/2 fitted free newb ship 'financially damaging" … :wink:
fly safe …



I have played it for several years before on another character. Maybe 7-8 years ago. But I get your point.

I did not say that it was financially damaging. I used that ship just because I knew the danger. I was just trying to make an argument more generally.

EDIT: Thanks for the welcome!


You’re right that it would be quite easy to circumvent. Maybe have that setting be global over all characters.

A lesser intrusive way of handling this could be to not mechanically prevent anyone from killing someone else, but rather having a flag, somewhat of a white flag, announcing to others that you’re not here primarily to fight other players.

Anyway, I’ve understood from what others have posted that my ideas aren’t very well thought out and I may lack some core understanding of the game. I can own that. Back to the drawing board for me, I guess. :smile:

1 Like