Except you are missing the most important factor. Ganking’s economic effect isn’t just about destruction cost. The far larger ISK amount is almost certainly that of all the thousands of modules highsec residents use for tank. After all…if there was no highsec ganking then no highsec resident would ever need them.
Safety has only existed for the past 4 years, and they alone have killed over 70 Trillion ISK worth of ships and cargo. And that’s just Safety. Now, add in Novus Ordo and the dozen or so other groups…
Yes, and during that same four years, Nullsec has caused roughly 2,000 Trillion and Lowsec about 900 Trillion. Plus, not all of Safety’s numbers are in high sec anyway.
You and a couple other guys keep banging this tired old drum, “remove ganking would destroy the economy and end the game”, yadda yadda yadda. There’s nothing but hot air to back it up.
Yes, it’s a useful amount of destruction. Yes, it adds a little steam to the economy. No, it isn’t direly needed nor even that significant. The amount of destruction from high sec ganking could be easily replaced by other methods.
That’s not to say it should be removed, which is a whole other discussion. Or what it should be replaced by, or how it should be altered to be more interesting and less detrimental to the game. Which are also other discussions.
Just saying the tired old “high sec ganking is utterly vital to the economy and if it was removed, 50,000 highsec bots would instantly take over all economic production in the game” blah blah. There’s never been a shred of evidence to back that up, and it’s self-defeating as well (since there’d be no point in running those bots if they weren’t economically productive).
1 Like
Well, there’s only one way to find out, and CCP isn’t going to do it. Ever. They know better…
2 Likes
High sec freight haulers would never buy another freighter or hauler ever again, because they would never lose one. No need to fit any modules on it either because, again, you can’t be ganked. No need for any ice products from low or null because we can mine all we want in high sec 24/7 in perfect safety. Among many, many other examples…
4 Likes
First thing I would do is enter someone’s moon mining OP with my entire fleet and wipe out the entire moon belt they paid for. And there’s not a damn thing they could do about it. I don’t own any structures, so you can’t wardec me. And you can’t gank me. So, you just have to sit there and watch me mine every last bit of the ore you paid to generate…
Shall I keep going, or are you starting to get the picture yet? You people never think of the extended consequences of the changes you are wanting…
2 Likes
before the advent of alphas’, and they still haven’t changed this rule, this was a bannable offense technically.
1 Like
Every bot is evidence that botting is a problem.
It’s obvious that, without ganking, botting would increase dramatically.
Why are you so intent on denying that?
6 Likes
Yes it was. But, again, what are they going to do about it? CCP in their infinite wisdom gave us unlimited free accounts, signed up for with anonymous email, and paid for with anonymous bank cards or PayPal. There is absolutely nothing they could do to stop it. They opened Pandora’s Box when they implemented Alpha accounts.
Precisely the point I made. But of course that gets ignored by ‘experts’ such as Kezrai.
Ganking isn’t just about destruction. It is far more about behaviour. And that includes mining ‘licences’, the fitting of defensive modules, the systems people mine in, and even the actual amount of mining…which clearly would be a lot more if there were no gankers.
Remove ganking and that behaviour change would see a far larger difference to the economy than that of a few ships destroyed. Measuring ganking solely in terms of destruction is to completely miss its larger effect on behaviour that affects the economy.
4 Likes
So I’ve heard. But was anyone punished for it? I know of one player who does this continuously and ganks shuttles and their pods arriving at Jita. I haven’t seen him for a while, but he did that at least 3 rounds last year and I don!t think he was banned. I also just bomassed 15 such alpha toons with a security status between -2 and-4 because they fulfilled their purpose and I don’t want to make new accounts to make new alphas for it . What they gonna do about it? And what is even the limit where you are breaking rules if you biomass? -10 ? -5 ? -0.1? If they want us to follow this rule then they should just implement a hard restriction in the login screen where it would tell you “sorry, you can’t biomass characters with less that 0.0 sec”. This unwritten rule that GMs don’t even pursue is nonsense.
And even if they actually enforce the rule or implement hardcoded limitation, as @QuakeGod pointed out, there is nothing easier than to just make a brand new account. In fact it is even more advantageous because first character gets 1 million SP from refer-a-friend. And then dispose of old “busted” accounts.
Yes, just look at the Catalyst.
I think you’d need a close look at the destruction in high-sec first, ie: losses via ganking vs. wardecs vs. legitimate (FW targets, suspect, duals, etc.)
You can’t stop the gank & CCP shouldn’t. The best method is tank up & make yourself an undesirable target. Oh, and also never fly what you can’t afford to lose.
[Undock] = PvP.
3 Likes
Literally the lamest thing you could say.
1 Like
Why? It’s true.
2 Likes
By your logic:
You’re grandmother goes to the market. Some bad guy hits her in the head with a brick and steals her purse.
You go to visit her in the hospital.
When she tells you what happened and starts to cry, you say, “You knew what you were getting into when you left your house.”
Got it!
1 Like
Someone getting smacked with a brick Vs losing an internet space ship is not the same thing. That’s a bit of an extreme leap of circumstances there.
Anyway, the fact still remains once you undock, PVP can happen if you want it or not. That’s just how the game is.
2 Likes
I didn’t say it was the same thing.
Exercise your brain. 
Also, just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.