# What would you do if you Couldn’t Gank? **URL:** \ **Category:** General Discussion\ **Created:** [June 13, 2026, 1:24am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/what-would-you-do-if-you-couldn-t-gank/513244 "2026-06-13T01:24:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 21
**Author:** ![Anabella\_Rella](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/anabella_rella/32/515671_2.png) [@Anabella\_Rella](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Anabella_Rella)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2026, 8:00pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/what-would-you-do-if-you-couldn-t-gank/513244/406 "2026-06-27T20:00:57Z")
I agree that CoW hasn’t been exactly groundbreaking in terms of fresh content or ideas and there were quite a few showstopping bugs. Like I said it’s nowhere near perfect but, we need to give FC a chance and give them some time to experiment and iterate. The game didn’t end up in this spot overnight and it likewise won’t be made better overnight. And before someone tries accusing me of apologizing for FC, look at many of my past posts. I’ve been **plenty critical** of them in the past (and still am). I’m also a realist. You don’t fix 20 years worth of problems in one update. ---
**Author:** ![Hatch\_Nasty](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/hatch_nasty/32/512820_2.png) [@Hatch\_Nasty](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Hatch_Nasty)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2026, 8:09pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/what-would-you-do-if-you-couldn-t-gank/513244/407 "2026-06-27T20:09:47Z")
> [@Anabella\_Rella](#): > > You don’t fix 20 years worth of problems in one update. And you probably don’t want to try. When you’re working with complex systems, it’s safer to make small, iterative changes rather than sweeping changes that can have unforeseen effects. You tend to get better results, it just takes more time. ---
**Author:** ![Syzygium](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/syzygium/32/510263_2.png) [@Syzygium](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Syzygium)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2026, 8:19pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/what-would-you-do-if-you-couldn-t-gank/513244/408 "2026-06-27T20:19:43Z")
> [@Anabella\_Rella](#): > > I’m not saying that ganking, scams, etc are the **sole** reason Eve is losing new players Ganking plays an absolutely miniscule role in EVE losing players. EVE loses players because it can’t keep it’s promises and thus the expectations of the players. It’s really that simple. Someone sees some trailers, maybe read some articles and then tests the game or maybe convinces some friends, and if what he sees and experiences doesn’t fit the expectations, he simply leaves. CCP made the _huge mistake_ designing most mechanics around the needs and demands of the very big groups. Which effectively leads to the point where it cannot have any _grassroot growth_ any more, just more and more alts of already established players. ---
**Author:** ![Lucy\_Alfrir](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/lucy_alfrir/32/382506_2.png) [@Lucy\_Alfrir](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Lucy_Alfrir)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2026, 9:21pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/what-would-you-do-if-you-couldn-t-gank/513244/409 "2026-06-27T21:21:06Z")
> [@Syzygium](#): > > CCP made the _huge mistake_ designing most mechanics around the needs and demands of the very big groups. See I’m not sure they really did that entirely intentionally. Having more toons in a fleet is a hard thing to make ineffective. It’s hard to design a game where punching up is easy. ---
**Author:** ![Eternus8lux8lucis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/eternus8lux8lucis/32/385152_2.png) [@Eternus8lux8lucis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Eternus8lux8lucis)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2026, 9:35pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/what-would-you-do-if-you-couldn-t-gank/513244/410 "2026-06-27T21:35:54Z")
> [@Lucy\_Alfrir](#): > > See I’m not sure they really did that entirely intentionally. Early on in game development they certainly did. Null sec was the wild frontier and the “unexplored” unknown. The entire development track as always been to get players to null sec. It has always been the end game. That being said it did become its own problem as Syzygium is alluding to. The irony is that that early success created its own issues, problems and cancers. Like a big boulder rolling downhill soon it cannot be stopped and trying will do a lot of damage. This is the problem created by the original developers successes, not failures. Yet now devs have changed, gaming has changed and a new generation expects ‘other’ things in game design. What youre left with are older gamers holding onto the “good ole days” and newer gamers screaming for change and FC stuck in the middle trying to pump new blood and life into a 2 decade old game. But dont think it wasnt fully intentional to increase alts, subs, and players and therefore income by FC. ---
**Author:** ![Syzygium](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/syzygium/32/510263_2.png) [@Syzygium](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Syzygium)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2026, 9:57pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/what-would-you-do-if-you-couldn-t-gank/513244/411 "2026-06-27T21:57:36Z")
> [@Lucy\_Alfrir](#): > > See I’m not sure they really did that entirely intentionally. In the first years they certainly did. @Eternus8lux8lucis has explained it very well. NullSec alliances offered the “endgame” and the “big battles” and they wanted to make sure those stay and produce news that draws attention to the game. Unfortunately they missed the moment when those entities became so big and powerful, that they could basically _solve any problem_ anyway and _effectively pin and hold down any competition_. What this game needs is mechanics that _naturally slow down top end growth_ of groups by giving a) diminishing returns for growing more (aka lowering motivation) and b) increasing pressure from growing more (aka increasing challenge). Yes, that is not easy, but it can be done. Geography, PowerProjection and StructureDesign are key features here. As in human history, all Empires can crumble from within or be cracked from the outside. But that means the game needs to actually keep such options open and not offer so much convenience options that effectively a crew of a handful of real people can conveniently control the money, resources, assets and firepower of tenthousands of other players. ---
**Author:** ![Eternus8lux8lucis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/eternus8lux8lucis/32/385152_2.png) [@Eternus8lux8lucis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Eternus8lux8lucis)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2026, 10:02pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/what-would-you-do-if-you-couldn-t-gank/513244/412 "2026-06-27T22:02:52Z")
> [@Syzygium](#): > > What this game needs is mechanics that _naturally slow down top end growth_ of groups by giving a) diminishing returns for growing more (aka lowering motivation) and b) increasing pressure from growing more (aka increasing challenge). > Yes, that is not easy, but it can be done. Geography, PowerProjection and StructureDesign are key features here. As in human history, all Empires can crumble from within or be cracked from the outside. But that means the game needs to actually keep such options open and not offer so much convenience options that effectively a crew of a handful of real people can conveniently control the money, resources, assets and firepower of tenthousands of other players. And I believe FC would rather have this be player-driven, rather than more NPC AI. Even though NPC AI could begin to do this, it would then be more scripted rather than sandbox in design and therefore not accomplish the grand overarching design of Eve that has been built into Eve in the past. Itll be a tall order for FC to tackle imo and might be the make it or break it of the future game design. Especially given the base gameplay options and avenues available. ---
**Author:** ![Lucy\_Alfrir](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/lucy_alfrir/32/382506_2.png) [@Lucy\_Alfrir](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Lucy_Alfrir)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2026, 10:08pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/what-would-you-do-if-you-couldn-t-gank/513244/413 "2026-06-27T22:08:21Z")
You both just said: “CCP promoted Nullsec” meaning CCP promoted big groups. Without questioning why nullsec == big groups. My point it that it’s hard to design a multiplayer game where being mob handed is not an advantage. > [@Syzygium](#): > > What this game needs is mechanics that _naturally slow down top end growth_ of groups But what are those mechanics? How do you make a game where bringing more dps to the fight doesn’t win? Or even having more miners and more industrialists replacing your losses doesn’t win? ---
**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:** [June 27, 2026, 10:16pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/what-would-you-do-if-you-couldn-t-gank/513244/414 "2026-06-27T22:16:17Z")
> [@Lucy\_Alfrir](#): > > what are those mechanics? Resource **SCARCITY** would cause friction within the group, leading to fights within the group. Likewise, a local **BLACKOUT** would disrupt the value of automated intel, leading to paranoia and tension within large groups. ---
**Author:** ![Lucy\_Alfrir](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/lucy_alfrir/32/382506_2.png) [@Lucy\_Alfrir](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Lucy_Alfrir)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2026, 10:20pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/what-would-you-do-if-you-couldn-t-gank/513244/415 "2026-06-27T22:20:54Z")
I thought they’d tried those, was there any change in the power of the blocs? ---
**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:** [June 27, 2026, 10:21pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/what-would-you-do-if-you-couldn-t-gank/513244/416 "2026-06-27T22:21:19Z")
They didn’t try those - they catered to the crybabies, and they failed to administer the medicine that nullsec needs. CCP’s primary failure over the past twenty years has been letting nullsec political machines influence decision making, via the CSM and organized protests. Going back to the ‘Summer of Rage’ and the ‘Greed is Good’ scandal, CCP should have told the players to shut up and sit down. The whiny bittervets, and the leadership of large carebear groups, want easily organized semi-automated farming content. However, that is not good for the game. In order to improve the game, CCP will need to upset many of these players, but the result will be a better game with new players. ---
**Author:** ![Eternus8lux8lucis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/eternus8lux8lucis/32/385152_2.png) [@Eternus8lux8lucis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Eternus8lux8lucis)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2026, 10:32pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/what-would-you-do-if-you-couldn-t-gank/513244/417 "2026-06-27T22:32:21Z")
> [@Lucy\_Alfrir](#): > > You both just said: > > “CCP promoted Nullsec” meaning CCP promoted big groups. Without questioning why nullsec == big groups. My point it that it’s hard to design a multiplayer game where being mob handed is not an advantage. N+1 has been around for a long time. The idea of force multipliers within ship and module designs, as well as simply more warm bodies in seats infront of computers, were always there in game design. It was, imo, purely a financial decision on FCs part. It made them more money so promoting this and getting more subs and players for the game allowed for this. The very ideas of ‘sandcastle’ kicking, being the villain and mechanics allowing for bullying, scamming and piracy added to the null sec/big group mentalities we know of as Eve. Everything was designed around these base mechanics and as Ive said in other posts the issues now are a product of FCs successes in those areas. Now, unless you are a part of the ‘Roflstomp’ big groups, you are delegated to be a second-class citizen as solo and small groups just get stomped and big groups blue donut with each other for economic security. This leads to the newbros and smaller groups and solo players crying and lamenting their place in the Eve pecking order. Ironically much like real life. The big hurdle now is attracting ‘real’ newbies and retaining new blood within a dual decade-long campaign to create big group play and establish them as top of the food chain. True newbs are realizing it faster and faster and just voting with their lack of time, money and investment within the Eve universe. The issue for me isnt that newbros should have such benefits, and need them, but being able to tell ‘real’ newbros from alts of vets. This is something that FC doesnt want, for obvious reasons, as it would break a lot of the core gameplay options of “spais” and infiltration. Then you have the reality, like in real life, where the ‘haves’ definitely do not want the ‘have nots’ to upset the apple cart and the monopoly of the game they love. Something that would also create a mass exodus from the game. I’ve known many older players, personally, leaving because of FC’s game play changes that have broken or cancelled game play options, or development decisions along the pathway. So yes, the mob has won. Now what? That remains the pressing question. And does FC actually WANT to upset the apple cart? Does FC care beyond the shareholders bottom line? And really only FC can tackle this issue, if they actually want to. ---
**Author:** ![Arthur\_Aihaken](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arthur_aihaken/32/504104_2.png) [@Arthur\_Aihaken](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arthur_Aihaken)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2026, 10:39pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/what-would-you-do-if-you-couldn-t-gank/513244/418 "2026-06-27T22:39:56Z")
> [@Lucy\_Alfrir](#): > > Having more toons in a fleet is a hard thing to make ineffective. Depending on the fleet size, they could reduce overall speed, sensor strength and signature. ---
**Author:** ![Syzygium](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/syzygium/32/510263_2.png) [@Syzygium](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Syzygium)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2026, 10:51pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/what-would-you-do-if-you-couldn-t-gank/513244/419 "2026-06-27T22:51:13Z")
> [@Eternus8lux8lucis](#): > > And I believe FC would rather have this be player-driven I believe it cannot happen “player-driven” any more. The mechanics are not there or not there any more. > [@Lucy\_Alfrir](#): > > How do you make a game where bringing more dps to the fight doesn’t win? Or even having more miners and more industrialists replacing your losses doesn’t win? The problem this game has goes _far beyond_ “having more DPS” or “having more miners to replace losses”. The problem is based on _controlling space_ and _other players assets_. Ideas are in the desk, no worries. I am just not sure investing like an hour to write a 3-page essay is worth it. You can break it down into 3 chapters: **- Power projection:** groups should only be able to hold Sov on systems where they can ensure _a) high activity on a daily basis b) a local defense force to protect the resources of those systems_ It has to be _mechanically impossible_ to defend a huge region with a standing fleet that is cynoed around on demand. Big groups need to be _forced to split_ their army if they want to effectively defend multiple borders. And only come together for defending large invasions or launch large assaults on others. Daily business has to make sure the more they blob-up, the less area they can effectively secure. The whole Cyno Mechanic has to be re-set to it’s orginal values: aka 30-45 sec for a jump, to make sure small and mobile gangs cannot be caught by a hotdrop, strategical or tactical goals can still be secured by escalating big fights. **- Structure Design / Asset Control** Upwell Structures need to be redesigned to work 90% like POSes did (yes, the orginal Devs knew exactly what they did when they made these things), just with the added convenience of being able to “dock” on them. And that includes _every single aspect_, from fueling them, limited anchoring locations, limited fuel hangars, limited storage space, limited job numbers, repairable under fire, much more powerful force multipliers aka EWAR, incredibly unlucrative and boring to burn down so no one does it without a good reason (aka trying to really taking over the system). Asset Safetly limitation to a minium to ensure individual players can save their most valuable assets, BPOs, BlingItems etc… - but all ships and large piles of resources are excluded. **Combat Limitations** Fleetsize needs to be restricted again to 255 people. 5 Wings with 5 Squads a 10 people. Skill bound. Bring more, need more FCs. DPS on a single target should have diminishing returns like Logi already has. Threshold is open for balancing. Splitting up DPS among different Squads on different Targets at the same time should always be more effective than letting the whole fleet shoot at one target. A smaller fleet of better players could actually outperform a larger fleet of F1 grunts. More AoE debuff-weaponry that needs to be outmaneuvered in the fight (but isn’t instantly game-ending if it hits). So with constant good aiming you can give your fleet a benefit, with constant good maneuvering you can deny the other fleet such benefits. Skill matters more than numbers. Standing costs based on the chars involved, including alliance- and corporation maintenance costs. High initial costs, moderate monthly bill. Make sure to have as few blues as possible, else it gets expensive. Or deal with an Overview Chaos. good luck. Remove ALL remote-ship commands. Every player is _self responsible_ to follow orders. No Regroups, no Drone Assist, no Fleetwarps (!!!). This allows smaller high-skill groups to “fish” for people who miswarp or don’t align properly, and the FC has to decide if he warps back to save them and lose time or not and lose ships. Moving a larger fleet of lower-skilled players safely will be a lot slower than moving a small fleet of more skilled people. Gates with limited mass/minute on a recharge-timer. Slow to funnel a huge fleet of big ships trough. No slowdown for smaller squads or lighter ships. We can basically go on endlessly from here…, this game has _so many aspects_ that would have littel or no effect on small groups, but exponential effects the larger a group of fleet gets. The problem is that most players simply don’t care for the good of the game. They only care for _themselves_. "Uhh we can’t do that because _I benefit from it!"_. ---
**Author:** ![Lucy\_Alfrir](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/lucy_alfrir/32/382506_2.png) [@Lucy\_Alfrir](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Lucy_Alfrir)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2026, 11:06pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/what-would-you-do-if-you-couldn-t-gank/513244/420 "2026-06-27T23:06:15Z")
Sounds good, I hadn’t thought of such options, I was thinking you’d come back with something like Arthur did. Although I don’t think any of them will be implemented. vOv ---
**Author:** ![Syzygium](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/syzygium/32/510263_2.png) [@Syzygium](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Syzygium)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2026, 11:16pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/what-would-you-do-if-you-couldn-t-gank/513244/421 "2026-06-27T23:16:45Z")
Yeah on that we agree. I don’t see that either, at least not all of them. Maybe we will see _some_ tweaks, but mostly bandaid at best. They simply fear too harsh disruptions, which I understand. I’d be happy if CCP simply would make steps into the right direction. ---
**Author:** ![Arthur\_Aihaken](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arthur_aihaken/32/504104_2.png) [@Arthur\_Aihaken](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arthur_Aihaken)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2026, 11:22pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/what-would-you-do-if-you-couldn-t-gank/513244/422 "2026-06-27T23:22:09Z")
> [@Lucy\_Alfrir](#): > > I was thinking you’d come back with something like Arthur did. What’s wrong with my casual, mobile-derived suggestions? ---
**Author:** ![Lucy\_Alfrir](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/lucy_alfrir/32/382506_2.png) [@Lucy\_Alfrir](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Lucy_Alfrir)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2026, 11:22pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/what-would-you-do-if-you-couldn-t-gank/513244/423 "2026-06-27T23:22:40Z")
I think you know. ---
**Author:** ![Arthur\_Aihaken](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arthur_aihaken/32/504104_2.png) [@Arthur\_Aihaken](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arthur_Aihaken)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2026, 11:23pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/what-would-you-do-if-you-couldn-t-gank/513244/424 "2026-06-27T23:23:54Z")
Not really. The larger the blob the larger, well… the blob. A 100-ship fleet has to be easier to target than a 25 or 50-ship fleet. And a larger fleet would certainly be easier to pick up. ---
**Author:** ![James\_Fuchs](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/james_fuchs/32/504955_2.png) [@James\_Fuchs](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/James_Fuchs)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2026, 12:43am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/what-would-you-do-if-you-couldn-t-gank/513244/425 "2026-06-28T00:43:02Z")
> [@Syzygium](#): > > > [@Eternus8lux8lucis](#): > > > > And I believe FC would rather have this be player-driven > > I believe it cannot happen “player-driven” any more. The mechanics are not there or not there any more. > > > [@Lucy\_Alfrir](#): > > > > How do you make a game where bringing more dps to the fight doesn’t win? Or even having more miners and more industrialists replacing your losses doesn’t win? > > The problem this game has goes _far beyond_ “having more DPS” or “having more miners to replace losses”. > The problem is based on _controlling space_ and _other players assets_. > > Ideas are in the desk, no worries. I am just not sure investing like an hour to write a 3-page essay is worth it. > > You can break it down into 3 chapters: > **- Power projection:** groups should only be able to hold Sov on systems where they can ensure > _a) high activity on a daily basis > b) a local defense force to protect the resources of those systems_ > > It has to be _mechanically impossible_ to defend a huge region with a standing fleet that is cynoed around on demand. Big groups need to be _forced to split_ their army if they want to effectively defend multiple borders. And only come together for defending large invasions or launch large assaults on others. Daily business has to make sure the more they blob-up, the less area they can effectively secure. > The whole Cyno Mechanic has to be re-set to it’s orginal values: aka 30-45 sec for a jump, to make sure small and mobile gangs cannot be caught by a hotdrop, strategical or tactical goals can still be secured by escalating big fights. > > **- Structure Design / Asset Control** > Upwell Structures need to be redesigned to work 90% like POSes did (yes, the orginal Devs knew exactly what they did when they made these things), just with the added convenience of being able to “dock” on them. > And that includes _every single aspect_, from fueling them, limited anchoring locations, limited fuel hangars, limited storage space, limited job numbers, repairable under fire, much more powerful force multipliers aka EWAR, incredibly unlucrative and boring to burn down so no one does it without a good reason (aka trying to really taking over the system). > > Asset Safetly limitation to a minium to ensure individual players can save their most valuable assets, BPOs, BlingItems etc… - but all ships and large piles of resources are excluded. > > **Combat Limitations** > Fleetsize needs to be restricted again to 255 people. 5 Wings with 5 Squads a 10 people. Skill bound. Bring more, need more FCs. > > DPS on a single target should have diminishing returns like Logi already has. Threshold is open for balancing. Splitting up DPS among different Squads on different Targets at the same time should always be more effective than letting the whole fleet shoot at one target. A smaller fleet of better players could actually outperform a larger fleet of F1 grunts. > > More AoE debuff-weaponry that needs to be outmaneuvered in the fight (but isn’t instantly game-ending if it hits). So with constant good aiming you can give your fleet a benefit, with constant good maneuvering you can deny the other fleet such benefits. Skill matters more than numbers. > > Standing costs based on the chars involved, including alliance- and corporation maintenance costs. High initial costs, moderate monthly bill. Make sure to have as few blues as possible, else it gets expensive. Or deal with an Overview Chaos. good luck. > > Remove ALL remote-ship commands. Every player is _self responsible_ to follow orders. No Regroups, no Drone Assist, no Fleetwarps (!!!). This allows smaller high-skill groups to “fish” for people who miswarp or don’t align properly, and the FC has to decide if he warps back to save them and lose time or not and lose ships. Moving a larger fleet of lower-skilled players safely will be a lot slower than moving a small fleet of more skilled people. > > Gates with limited mass/minute on a recharge-timer. Slow to funnel a huge fleet of big ships trough. No slowdown for smaller squads or lighter ships. > > We can basically go on endlessly from here…, this game has _so many aspects_ that would have littel or no effect on small groups, but exponential effects the larger a group of fleet gets. The problem is that most players simply don’t care for the good of the game. They only care for _themselves_. "Uhh we can’t do that because _I benefit from it!"_. No dude, **ganking** is the real problem. I’m so glad we got people like @Arthur_Aihaken who understand the game so well, that they know precisely which aspects are frustrating and driving off players. None of the above things by the way. Just ganking. Eve Online literally lost 1 million players because ganking is out of control, and it has nothing to do with silly things like null sec being able to project the entirety of their power to any group they want from the comfort of their own base. Someone losing their retriever, that is the real ■■■■, hope you guys will finally realize what really matters in this game. With real regards -James Fuchs [Previous page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/what-would-you-do-if-you-couldn-t-gank/513244.md?page=20) [Next page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/what-would-you-do-if-you-couldn-t-gank/513244.md?page=22)