# Uedama anti-gank **URL:** \ **Category:** Crime & Punishment\ **Created:** [May 23, 2020, 6:53pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/uedama-anti-gank/243461 "2020-05-23T18:53:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 74
**Author:** ![Scipio\_Artelius](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/scipio_artelius/32/408264_2.png) [@Scipio\_Artelius](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Scipio_Artelius)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 2:53am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/uedama-anti-gank/243461/1487 "2021-11-06T02:53:20Z")
> [@Ridley\_Rohan](#): > > Its what the entire thing rests on. Yes. It rests on rice paper. Highsec gankers don’t gank in lowsec. It’s kind of in the name. So if Uedama was made lowsec, then they’d just move and highsec players would be left, whinging that there is no longer a highsec route from Jita to Amarr. It isn’t hard to understand how this would impact non-gankers far, far more than gankers. ---
**Author:** ![Ridley\_Rohan](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ridley_rohan/32/403694_2.png) [@Ridley\_Rohan](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Ridley_Rohan)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 2:54am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/uedama-anti-gank/243461/1488 "2021-11-06T02:54:07Z")
> [@Scipio\_Artelius](#): > > Highsec gankers don’t gank in lowsec. Congratulations. You may be starting to finally get it. ---
**Author:** ![Scipio\_Artelius](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/scipio_artelius/32/408264_2.png) [@Scipio\_Artelius](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Scipio_Artelius)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 2:54am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/uedama-anti-gank/243461/1489 "2021-11-06T02:54:57Z")
> [@Ridley\_Rohan](#): > > You may be starting to finally get it. I get it fine. You apparently don’t though, which is no surprise. ---
**Author:** ![Ridley\_Rohan](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ridley_rohan/32/403694_2.png) [@Ridley\_Rohan](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Ridley_Rohan)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 2:58am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/uedama-anti-gank/243461/1490 "2021-11-06T02:58:51Z")
> [@Scipio\_Artelius](#): > > I get it fine. That’s just it. You keep insisting you do, but you clearly don’t. BTW we are talking about the situation in Uedama. If the gankers leave Uedama, that’s a victory for AG right there. So if Uedama becomes low sec, then the current gankers must either adapt or leave. Obviously. > [@Scipio\_Artelius](#): > > It isn’t hard to understand how this would impact non-gankers far, far more than gankers. That is your contention and you are welcome to it. I have not made up my mind because I think its more complicated than you do. In fact, the first thing I said about this was “might be” because I think its complicated. You think its simple. Fine. Solved. We disagree. NEXT! ---
**Author:** ![Scipio\_Artelius](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/scipio_artelius/32/408264_2.png) [@Scipio\_Artelius](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Scipio_Artelius)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 3:03am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/uedama-anti-gank/243461/1491 "2021-11-06T03:03:16Z")
> [@Ridley\_Rohan](#): > > I have not made up my mind because I think its more complicated than you do. Yes, I get that something that’s simple, is complicated for you. Maybe answer this question: How does removing one more highsec system from the game, have more of an impact on highsec gankers than on other highsec players, for example haulers? There used to be 1212 highsec systems before Pochven. Now there in 1192. If there was 1191, is that somehow going to change the game drastically for highsec gankers more than the introduction of Pochven did for haulers? ---
**Author:** ![Ridley\_Rohan](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ridley_rohan/32/403694_2.png) [@Ridley\_Rohan](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Ridley_Rohan)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 3:06am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/uedama-anti-gank/243461/1492 "2021-11-06T03:06:58Z")
> [@Scipio\_Artelius](#): > > If there was 1191, is that somehow going to change the game drastically for highsec gankers See, you don’t get it. I am talking specifically about Uedama. See thread title. ---
**Author:** ![Scipio\_Artelius](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/scipio_artelius/32/408264_2.png) [@Scipio\_Artelius](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Scipio_Artelius)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 3:08am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/uedama-anti-gank/243461/1493 "2021-11-06T03:08:43Z")
> [@Ridley\_Rohan](#): > > See, you don’t get it. I am talking specifically about Uedama. See thread title. Yes, 1192 current highsec systems, take away Uedama = 1191 highsec systems. This isn’t hard Ridley. If you remove Uedama from highsec, there is no all highsec route from Jita to Amarr. Who does that impact more. Gankers (who still have 1191 highsec systems to highsec gank in), or haulers, who no longer have an all highsec route between the 2 main trade hubs? There is no more anti-gank in Uedama, because there is no more highsec gank in Uedama. ---
**Author:** ![Ridley\_Rohan](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ridley_rohan/32/403694_2.png) [@Ridley\_Rohan](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Ridley_Rohan)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 3:12am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/uedama-anti-gank/243461/1494 "2021-11-06T03:12:57Z")
> [@Scipio\_Artelius](#): > > If you remove Uedama from highsec, there is no all highsec route from Jita to Amarr. Correct. > [@Scipio\_Artelius](#): > > Who does that impact more. Gankers (who still have 1191 highsec systems to highsec gank in), or haulers, who no longer have an all highsec route between the 2 main trade hubs? The Uedama gankers will have to either move to a new system or change their playstyle. If you think those are mere trifles, that’s fine. You are welcome to that opinion. Personallly I think haulers will fly just as are now. Some will fly smart and some will fly stupid…right through to Uedama, either way. ---
**Author:** ![Scipio\_Artelius](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/scipio_artelius/32/408264_2.png) [@Scipio\_Artelius](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Scipio_Artelius)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 3:15am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/uedama-anti-gank/243461/1495 "2021-11-06T03:15:28Z")
> [@Ridley\_Rohan](#): > > The Uedama gankers will have to either move to a new system or change their playstyle Yes, 1191 other systems they can still gank in. Hooray, you removed 1 system and they move to other highsec systems. You claiming that gankers needing to move to a new system is a bigger change for them than it would be for haulers, mission runners, people who just want to get from Amarr to Jita, etc. is lunacy. ---
**Author:** ![Ridley\_Rohan](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ridley_rohan/32/403694_2.png) [@Ridley\_Rohan](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Ridley_Rohan)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 3:17am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/uedama-anti-gank/243461/1496 "2021-11-06T03:17:35Z")
> [@Scipio\_Artelius](#): > > You claiming that gankers needing to move to a new system is a bigger change for them than it would be for haulers, mission runners, people who just want to get from Amarr to Jita, etc. is lunacy. That is your opinion to cherish. But the Uedama gankers don’t seem to keep packing up and moving around. I think its a bit more than just laziness. ---
**Author:** ![Scipio\_Artelius](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/scipio_artelius/32/408264_2.png) [@Scipio\_Artelius](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Scipio_Artelius)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 3:19am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/uedama-anti-gank/243461/1497 "2021-11-06T03:19:38Z")
> [@Ridley\_Rohan](#): > > But the Uedama gankers don’t seem to keep to pack up and move around. I think its a bit more than just laziness. Yeah, they’ll totally change their playstyle that they enjoy, and instead become lowsec pvpers. Sure, sure. This is something that impacts their gameplay (and that of any miners that now pull CONCORD to a belt): [https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/qnovxt/ccp\_declares\_pulling\_concord\_an\_exploit\_and\_kills/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/qnovxt/ccp_declares_pulling_concord_an_exploit_and_kills/) Removing one system is laughable as a change. ---
**Author:** ![Wes\_Wyhunnan](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/wes_wyhunnan/32/409400_2.png) [@Wes\_Wyhunnan](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Wes_Wyhunnan)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 4:41am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/uedama-anti-gank/243461/1498 "2021-11-06T04:41:00Z")
> [@Ridley\_Rohan](#): > > The Uedama gankers will have to either move to a new system or change their playstyle. If you think those are mere trifles, that’s fine. You are welcome to that opinion. > > Personallly I think haulers will fly just as are now. Some will fly smart and some will fly stupid…right through to Uedama, either way. The idea that somehow changing Uedama to a low sec system and the belief that will somehow effect gankers more than haulers is one of the most wild opinions I have heard on these forums. That is a hot take my man. That would demolish that trade route. You honestly think freighters could get through there? There would be a goonswarm fleet of 150 guys there 24/7. Literally nothing more than a shuttle would make it through. And the gankers would move to a .5 system by Rens or something. You know, like Aiko already has. ---
**Author:** ![Aiko\_Danuja](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/aiko_danuja/32/481237_2.png) [@Aiko\_Danuja](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Aiko_Danuja)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 4:46am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/uedama-anti-gank/243461/1499 "2021-11-06T04:46:16Z")
> [@Ridley\_Rohan](#): > > the gankers would have to change the most So I would have to fleet up with Snuffed Out? Ok. ---
**Author:** ![Ridley\_Rohan](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ridley_rohan/32/403694_2.png) [@Ridley\_Rohan](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Ridley_Rohan)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 7:28am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/uedama-anti-gank/243461/1500 "2021-11-06T07:28:18Z")
> [@Wes\_Wyhunnan](#): > > The idea that somehow changing Uedama to a low sec system and the belief that will somehow effect gankers more than haulers is one of the most wild opinions I have heard on these forums. Cool. Not sure where the heck you heard that but cool. My opinion was that in Uedama Concord _might_ AFFECT AG more than gankers. But do go ahead and accuse me of things I never said. Its standard here. ---
**Author:** ![Ridley\_Rohan](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ridley_rohan/32/403694_2.png) [@Ridley\_Rohan](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Ridley_Rohan)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 7:31am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/uedama-anti-gank/243461/1501 "2021-11-06T07:31:38Z")
> [@Scipio\_Artelius](#): > > Removing one system is laughable as a change. What would be a laugh would be if their structures got blown up by AG before they could be moved out out of the fresh low sec area. ---
**Author:** ![Scipio\_Artelius](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/scipio_artelius/32/408264_2.png) [@Scipio\_Artelius](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Scipio_Artelius)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 7:34am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/uedama-anti-gank/243461/1502 "2021-11-06T07:34:28Z")
> [@Ridley\_Rohan](#): > > My opinion was that in Uedama Concord _might_ AFFECT AG more than gankers No, it was that everyone would have to change, but gankers would have to change the most: > [@Ridley\_Rohan](#): > > Also, everyone would have to change their tactics, but the gankers would have to change the most “Would”, not “might”, and “everyone” not “AG” ---
**Author:** ![Ridley\_Rohan](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ridley_rohan/32/403694_2.png) [@Ridley\_Rohan](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Ridley_Rohan)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 7:41am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/uedama-anti-gank/243461/1503 "2021-11-06T07:41:39Z")
> [@Scipio\_Artelius](#): > > No, it was that everyone would have to change, Don’t presume to tell me what MY opinion is. If you misread what I wrote that’s one thing. But you don’t know what I am saying half the time and if that’s my poor wording or your reading comprehension well its another matter. But telling me what my opinion is is beyond mere doofus level, so I am going with your comprehension being the problem here. ---
**Author:** ![Dracvlad](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/dracvlad/32/444126_2.png) [@Dracvlad](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Dracvlad)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 8:11am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/uedama-anti-gank/243461/1504 "2021-11-06T08:11:13Z")
Yesterday the X-100 group of gankers were no longer operating in Uedama and were reported operating in Hek. ---
**Author:** ![Gix\_Firebrand](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/gix_firebrand/32/456949_2.png) [@Gix\_Firebrand](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Gix_Firebrand)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 9:03am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/uedama-anti-gank/243461/1505 "2021-11-06T09:03:06Z")
> [@Ridley\_Rohan](#): > > What I think is that down-grading a high sec system to a low sec system will make it operate like a low sec system. Yes there are ganker gate camps in low sec bottlenecks between two high sec islands. However, given Uedama’s proximity to Jita I think more people will be willing to use their expensive ships knowing Concord won’t blow them up for freely engaging. > > Also, everyone would have to change their tactics, but the gankers would have to change the most. Low sec gate camping is completely different from High sec multibox ganking. There aren’t ganker gate camps in low. Just gate camps. Ganking only happens in high sec 😃 Uh, it really isn’t. I’ve done quite a bit of time at a low sec gate. Its much the same. Talking with the mates until the gate flashes and then its go time. Not much different LOL. I’m guessing your thing is that the gankers could get ganked first if it was low. They still can in high 😃 > [@Ridley\_Rohan](#): > > Frulegur is off the beaten path. But there are ganks a plenty in that bottleneck. The real question is what would the freighter pilots do when their route gets a low sec system. I think they would do the same dumb stuff they do now. They still go through Uedama with no precaution after all this time. No ganks happen there 😃 Only PvP. > [@Ridley\_Rohan](#): > > Congratulations. You may be starting to finally get it. You don’t as you’ve posted wrong about it several times 😃 > [@Ridley\_Rohan](#): > > BTW we are talking about the situation in Uedama. If the gankers leave Uedama, that’s a victory for AG right there. So if Uedama becomes low sec, then the current gankers must either adapt or leave. Obviously. They are already moving to Hek and ganking untanked t1 indys that drop 360 mil in loot. > [@Ridley\_Rohan](#): > > The Uedama gankers will have to either move to a new system or change their playstyle. If you think those are mere trifles, that’s fine. You are welcome to that opinion. > > Personallly I think haulers will fly just as are now. Some will fly smart and some will fly stupid…right through to Uedama, either way. No, no they won’t LOL. Its why they don’t use the safe path thru Uedama. > [@Ridley\_Rohan](#): > > But the Uedama gankers don’t seem to keep packing up and moving around. I think its a bit more than just laziness. They already due to the structures being burned. And cause of the event and increased AG in Uedama. You’d know this if you played. > [@Ridley\_Rohan](#): > > Cool. Not sure where the heck you heard that but cool. My opinion was that in Uedama Concord _might_ AFFECT AG more than gankers. > > But do go ahead and accuse me of things I never said. Its standard here. You literally said that. Its ok bro. Keep on trying to gas light. ---
**Author:** ![Cilla\_Cybin](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/cilla_cybin/32/292206_2.png) [@Cilla\_Cybin](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Cilla_Cybin)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2021, 3:40pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/uedama-anti-gank/243461/1506 "2021-11-06T15:40:25Z")
> [@Torimika](#): > > As to your ranking of motive, why do you get to judge what is a worthy motive or not in others? That’s quite comical when one considers that ganker threads are entirely filled with condescending justifications involving how un-worthy, lazy, stupid, yada yada, miners are. I mean its the gankers who aren’t minding their own business…not the miners. Oh, I totally agree that Eve is an Attenborough nature documentary. It’s just that you’ve assigned gankers WAY too high up the food chain. They are not the brave and cunning lions or cheetahs, whose very survival may depend on the next meal…they are the leeches, tics, locusts, and other critters better know as ‘parasites’. [Previous page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/uedama-anti-gank/243461.md?page=73) [Next page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/uedama-anti-gank/243461.md?page=75)