High-sec is the home of non-consensual pvp. It can be said with some degree of objectivity that choosing to play in the safest environment the game has to offer is akin to providing the least consent for unwanted interaction with other players.

The removal of high-sec pvp wouldn't destroy the game per se, but it would change it. And the way it would change it would make it very similar to pretty much every other MMO available, what with the well-defined split between pvp and pve content they all seem to have. And it's here where EVE becomes endangered, because it doesn't offer features that are competitive enough in either the pve or pvp field to survive in the cut-throat MMO game market.

A component of this wealth transfer is wealth destruction, because not everything survives a ship explosion. Wealth destruction is the primary driving force behind EVE's economy, because this is the only way an economy with an upper ceiling for innovation can function. We can only create from a catalog of a few thousand items, instead of being able to innovate and invent indefinitely, like in real life. As such, EVE items need to be destroyed in order to have value. Take a significant portion of wealth transfer (and by effect, destruction) away, and the economy will lose steam. It has already been proven earlier in the thread that high-sec accounts for the majority of the game's pvp, and that players who engage in it wouldn't magically transfer over to other areas of space as a fallback option, so I don't see the need to address this further.

A component of this wealth transfer is wealth destruction, because not everything survives a ship explosion. Wealth destruction is the primary driving force behind EVE's economy, because this is the only way an economy with an upper ceiling for innovation can function.

No, because they do it in a certain way everyone approves of :)

But yeah, go on and live in your little fantasy world where ganking mission runners and noob pods is treated equally to PVP. You're seriously deluded if you think that hisec wardeccers are anything more than the laughing stock of the whole playerbase.

Who cares, the ship is cheap and easily replaceable. I could do this for years. Again...where is the risk?

Eve's appeal is not from the 1% of highsec players who live to blow up ships there.

Citation needed on that figure mate, especially before you accuse others of being wrong.

Go through killboards...compare number of players engaged in suicide ganking to total population of highsec.

Hint: it's very, very low. Some Codeies, a few Goons...some hauler gankers....and that's it.

My anti-ganking intel channels feature the same few names over and over again. Vast majority of highsec is mining, mission running, station trading, manufacturing, scamming, etc...

The number of people looking to suicide gank is tiny. There are more engaged in wars (which are essentially mutual because of the easy of dodging), but I would be very comfortable asserting that at any given time there are more people running incursions than engaged in exploding ships in highsec.

The number of people looking to suicide gank is tiny. There are more engaged in wars (which are essentially mutual because of the easy of dodging), but I would be very comfortable asserting that at any given time there are more people running incursions than engaged in exploding ships in highsec.

The risk is that you actually get smart and do something as a reaction.

You're right. Preying on people who don't learn is risk free.

Go through killboards...compare number of players engaged in suicide ganking to total population of highsec.

That didn't take long for the insults to come when you had no answer.


That was an easy win.

Here is the topic: Steps to survive Freighter bumping from Mach

The goal posts were moved by the we like using the broken mechanic side a few pages back.

Here is the topic: Steps to survive Freighter bumping from Mach

The goal posts were moved by the we like using the broken mechanic side a few pages back.

1. An argument is not proof. How would removing/reducing non-consensual PvP in highsec "destroy" the game?

2. Your examples of wealth "creation" are examples of wealth transfer, not creation. Looting, theft, etc... these don't create wealth. They simply reallocate it from one party to the next. The only way to actually CREATE wealth in Eve is by engaging with NPCs, contra World of Tanks.

The markets for freighters, barges and the like would collapse.




Ship and mod construction requires ship destruction. Piracy gameplay requires the ability to take stuff from others.

1. doubtful. Lot's of new players constantly need these. Ditto for existing players looking to upgrade. And don't forget nullsec mining. Tally the total number of these ships killed in highsec....you really think that is materially impacting the market? If so, wouldn't we expect a price significantly above mineral supply?

2. Not really. New players need ships, so do existing players looking for new ships. Anyhow, we would still have loads of destruction in low/null. And piracy would still exist there too.

It's hard to argue with a straight face that suicide ganking in highsec materially impacts the Eve economy. The amount of damage caused is dwarfed by a single significant nullsec engagement. How many months of suicide ganking would you need to equal a single BR-5?

Market would see several hundred to a thousand fewer barges sell every month with your change. Freighters operate almost exclusivly in high sec and would see at the very least a 60% drop in repeat sales. There is never enough players entering the game to replace these losses, the markets will be badly impacted.


How may freighters took part in that battle?

Your idiotic ideas are very harmful to EVE as ship destruction underpins the entire market and when you start removing the biggest areas of demand from markets that rely upon highsec losses heavily you end up with dead markets.

Piracy also heavily relys upon high sec for the vest bulk of its content as that is where the targets are.

Barges are a tiny fraction of the economy. Ditto for freighters. How many freighters blow up already? Do we really care if these ships get cheaper? I mean, bad for a few folks who build barges....bad for a few gankers....good for some barge owners....overall impact to the game - minimal.

We have more than enough ship destruction in nullsec. This crazy idea that highsec ship destruction is somehow integral to the game is pretty insane. Is this another Goon talking point?

How would removing/reducing non-consensual PvP in highsec "destroy" the game?

"I love EVE and the core of what the game stands for. That's why I've been dedicated to it and its community for over 11 years now.

Risk vs Reward is a huge part of that.

Honestly, if that changed, and the game started to soften out and cater to those who want to have their hand held all the way through their gameplay experience, I'd rather not be working on the project regardless of how many subscribers we had, than sell out the core principles that New Eden was built on.

That's a sentiment that I hear a lot around the office, because we are all invested in what makes New Eden so compelling - The dark, gritty, hard reality beneath the pretty ships and nebulas.

EVE is built on the core principle that you are never 100% safe, no matter where you go or what you do. When you interact with another player, you roll the dice on whether they're going to screw you over or not. That's a massive part of the social engineering behind the very basic underpinnings of the EVE Universe.

EVE is built on the core principle that you are never 100% safe, no matter where you go or what you do. When you interact with another player, you roll the dice on whether they're going to screw you over or not. That's a massive part of the social engineering behind the very basic underpinnings of the EVE Universe.

2 months ago you claimed you supported suicide ganking in high security space. You claimed there simply needed a small balance alteration. Over time you have increasingly argued against that stance, increasingly toward a remove non-consensual pvp from high security stance.

You have never supported any pvp aspect of the game. You have deliberately and intentionally been dishonest with your stance in numerous threads. You fail to understand that Eve is a sandbox where player vs player interaction is encouraged, whether that be mining out a belt to force your opposition to move; crashing the price of ishtars to drive other t2 inventors out of the market; alt spamming missions to create a glut of SOE LP to drive down prices of scanning gear to purchase in large quantities cheaply and gain market share.

Everything in Eve is Player vs Player. Removing one portion of PVP while allowing other forms of PVP to remain untouched alters game balance.

By the way here is what CCP think about what Eve Online should be:


Here goes a the bit you seem to repeatedly miss:



CCP do not want Eve Online to have safe zones: No where is 100% safe.

EVE IS ALREADY SUPER SAFE FOR COMPETENT PLAYERS.

So what are you arguing for? You feel the incompetent should be protected?

No, I'd like to see mechanics in place to steer gankers towards high value targets instead of sitting in Uedama and blowing up empty ships every 15 minutes. Or instead of hunting down AFK miners and AFK haulers with minimal consequences.

So you support AFK play?

What is the point of forcing people to be at keyboard?

Don't really have a problem with it. Think that you shouldn't be able to earn isk doing it...mining needs an interactive mini game. I don't mind autopiloting AFK because what is the point of forcing people to be at keyboard?

How would removing/reducing non-consensual PvP in highsec "destroy" the game?

How have I opposed PvP interaction? Have I tried to ban trading and manufacturing? I support the player driven market, a form of PvP. Incursions are PvP, due to limited sites, and contests, and I support that.