# Proposal for Rebalancing of the Suicide Gank **URL:** \ **Category:** Crime & Punishment\ **Tags:** high-sec\ **Created:** [June 24, 2022, 9:28am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/proposal-for-rebalancing-of-the-suicide-gank/368013 "2022-06-24T09:28:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 567
**Author:** ![Io\_Koval](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/io_koval/32/282426_2.png) [@Io\_Koval](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Io_Koval)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2022, 9:43pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/proposal-for-rebalancing-of-the-suicide-gank/368013/567 "2022-09-20T21:43:26Z")
> [@T\_Elliot](#): > > All of your points seem ridiculous to me Lucas, and they seem more designed to keep veterans on Golems safe while they crush lvl 4 missions. How dare you make this personal just because you disagree with him. His ideas have merit and are worthy of due consideration. > [@Lucas\_Kell](#): > > 🤣 🤣 Again copying the Aiko line. They split ganking in half and declared half of it griefing. > > But what I was actually referring to was [this blog post](https://www.eveonline.com/news/view/fanfest-day-two-wrap-up) where they state their intention for: > > > a clearer focus on **reducing ganking** to make PvP gameplay in Highsec more equitable and fun for all players As Lucas explicitly points out, CCP says they are going to start straight up begin removing ganking in its entirety. Completely, 100%, unquestioningly. Despite newbie ganking being the _real_ problem, it instead is really _all_ ganking, and CCP knows this, but can’t explicitly say it, so the blog post is much more credible for giving the unpopular truth. The popular truth stated in Fanfest was just off-the-cuff, to placate the people in the room, so the poor CCP employee didn’t have their life threatened. > [@Lucas\_Kell](#): > > > [@Altara\_Zemara](#): > > > > and the definition of griefing pretty much accords with that which has _already_ been defined in Support articles going back well before fanfest > > 🤣 This is not even close to true. Why would they even speak about looking for a solution if the solution is “ban anyone doing it because they are already violating the EULA”. I love that you try to take Aikos badly thought out claims but then because you don’t understand anything about the game you somehow manage to make them even worse arguments. 🤣 🤣 Yeah, for sure. Altara, it’s exactly as Lucas says: you’re missing the fact that they’ve already banned all The Griefers for violating the EULA. So why the hell is CCP talking about looking for a solution? Because they have to figure out how to stop the ~~gankers~~ griefers that-haven’t-been-banned-by-the-EULA and won’t be, and instead of banning them under the EULA like all other The Griefers, change the game mechanics to make the ~~gankers~~ griefers suffer from a game that outlives their playstyle. Teeny, tiny 🧠, Altara! > [@Lucas\_Kell](#): > > You must be the evil one, I’m lovely 😊 +1, I forgive you for the incel and [suicide comments](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/nerf-ganking-megathread/299004/8687) before. > [@Lucas\_Kell](#): > > > [@T\_Elliot](#): > > > > Seriously though Lucas, why would ganking need to be removed? It does not negatively affect people who just take a tiny bit of initiative and adapt to the realities of the game. It certainly does not keep people from playing their game as long as they take basic precautions. > > Because what you’re really saying there is “if you’re not new you’re probably safe”. The way I see it ganking doesn’t really add anything to the game, it’s overpowered, has no realistic counters, disproportionaltely affects new plaeys and gives the game a reputation for supporting griefers. Yeah you tell 'em! @T_Elliot you’re not ignoring the data that @Scipio_Artelius pulled that shows most gank victims are disproportionately \>1 year old or 1-day-old veteran alts. Once you do that, you’ll realize you’re exactly saying “If you’re not new you’re _definitely safe_” because all the newbies are bearing the brunt of a mechanic that is so overpowered it has _teeny weeny destroyers_ killing _ginormous huge_ battleships. There are no realistic counters in the game at all, gankers basically have to just click someone’s name in local and their ship is blown up at very little cost. In fact, I hear RMT botting click-farm mechanical Turks just sit in Jita all day at the undock clicking people’s names in local, making all the ships blow up. No counter. Plus, it is only _now_, 19 years after Eve’s founding, that ganking is finally ruining the great reputation Eve Online has amongst the gaming community. Completely eliminating ganking is the only 100% surefire way to restore it to its rightful reputation. > [@Lucas\_Kell](#): > > > [@T\_Elliot](#): > > > > Removing the challenges from a game is is a quick path to stagnation. Avoiding being ganked is not even that challenging. > > So removing challenges is bad, but at the same time you acknowledge ganking is not adding much of a challenge. I also support Lucas, we should simultaneously remove ganking, and bring back: - Learning Skills. - “Warp To” a stargate drops you off 10km from the gate. - Bookmark limit of 100. Return of Bookmark Cans, and Bookmark Trading. - Clone Upgrades & SP loss upon podding with a teeny weeny 🧠 pod. - Tech 3 cruiser skill loss. - Reintroduction of POS anchorables, elimination of citadel structures, and re-increase the 1-hour anchor timer for all POS anchorables. As these were also not adding much of a challenge so it really isn’t that bad, and because ganking isn’t much of a challenge and should be removed under my logic, it also wouldn’t matter to bring these things back, because it really isn’t that bad. > [@Lucas\_Kell](#): > > > [@T\_Elliot](#): > > > > The PvE in EvE is not really very good. Certainly not when compared to most other fantasy MMOs. > > Agreed, and that’s why I also support revamping all PvE activities. To me these activities should be challenging enough in their own right that multiboxing them many times over at the same time should be very difficult. I agree. In fact, it would be great if all stations were basically lobbies, and once you were in a fleet, you and your ~~alts~~ friends just undocked into an instanced arena where you could wander and do PvE content together. For folks without friends, maybe even matchmaking can be introduced! > [@Lucas\_Kell](#): > > > [@T\_Elliot](#): > > > > What EvE has going for it is its niche non-consensual PvP environment. > > That still exists without ganking, just one form of non-consensual PvP would cease to exist in highsec. Yep, _the only_ form of non-consensual PvP in highsec would be eliminated. And consent is very important in this game, we must remain incredibly principled. > [@Lucas\_Kell](#): > > > [@T\_Elliot](#): > > > > Your side is the one that is demanding that the game changes to the way you want it, against the desire of a great many here. > > You say “a great many” but it’s mainly a small, very vocal group that bombards every thread about the subject, and that group has barely changed faces in years. I’ve certainly seen more unique people complaining about ganking than I have seen those supporting it over the years. And you only need to peruse though review sites to see the perceived support of griefing as a feature that puts off plenty of people. Yes, we need the masses to play this game and run rampant. There should be room for people that want to purple-mod abyssal-roll all their items, just as people that strap 2 ORE mining lasers and 3 purple Mining Upgrades in the lows with empty mids and rigs can mine while cooking dinner. These quality of players are what is totally missing from our universe, and would add a dimension of depth and gameplay once they decide in a year or two to finally go to low sec and PvP. > [@Lucas\_Kell](#): > > > [@T\_Elliot](#): > > > > Ganking is rare, and it usually happens because someone was lazy and greedy. > > Or mor often that not, inexperienced. So new players come in, run into a veteran the veteran ganks them and resets a chunk of progress. Because that newbie isn’t yet very into EVE it’s far easier for them to chuck it in rather than go back through the early steps. CCP spoke about this in their fanfest presentation, that lack of ability to bootstrap back causes new player churn. And it’s a pretty common concept across MMOs, new players tend to be protected from early losses. Yeah, true that. An early loss of a 5 million ISK ship is definitely brutal by newbie standards, even if the ship is handed out for free as part of missions, because newbies don’t know that, despite the game railroading them into doing those career missions. At minimum, they should have billions of ISK and _only then_ be able to opt-in into being vulnerable to ganks, at their own discretion. That will ensure people who are taking risks in high sec are only doing so when they feel prepared. > [@Lucas\_Kell](#): > > You kinda missed the point though. An individual claim that “no convincing argument” has been made is meaningless. It’s a statement of preference, not an indicator that there are no valid and well considered arguments. Incredible insight. So many preferences here, when what I am saying is completely objective, truthful, and in no way a reflection of other people’s lack of grip on reality. --- _[View the full topic](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/proposal-for-rebalancing-of-the-suicide-gank/368013)._