Crime & Punishment

People generate isk at will afk ratting and mining....ditto for wormhole folks, lowsec l5 runners, highsec incursion and mission runners, etc....

Getting rid of the destruction of some highsec miners and haulers would make nary a dent on the ease of generating isk in the game. It's already super easy...it just takes some time and a tolerance for boredom...code and other griefers have not been able to have anything approaching a material impact.

Obviously. Buying a pen instead of a pencil has an effect on the world economy. Ditto for parking your car 12 feet v. 20 feet from your house. But the effect is small, as is the cumulative impact of highsec griefers on the broader economy.

And my list was not of afk activities...it was simply a list of ways to make loads of isk in relative safety.

Unfortunately you are seriously confused about economics. Briefly:

1. The eve economy is certainly not in equilibrium...plex prices tanked right after the ISBoxer change....anomalies continued to be farmed driving down deadspace mod prices.....nullsec is in a state of flux...and other developments make Eve very far from any kind of equilibrium state.

2. Even assuming, arguendo, that eve was in an equilibrium state, that would have nothing to do with the magnitude of the impact of a change in a production. If anything, an equilibrium state would experience less shock from that sort of change.

3. Why on earth is destruction proportional to generation? Destruction is fixed by the impact of players looking to blow things up. It is either uncorrelated, or anti-correlated with production.

4. Most of the losses in highsec are PvE players getting blown up by rats, or RvB fights, etc...the wardeccers, gankers, awoxxers, etc... have a truly minimal impact. Also, don't forget substitution effects....PvPers would not quit the game - they would go to nullsec and fight there.

To wit, your economic analysis is shoddy....you can do better.

1. The values of goods and currency fluctuating against one another doesn't mean that an equilibrium doesn't exist.

2. Drastically increasing output would create an overabundance of certain types of goods (and currency itself). They could lose value to such an extent that they'd become worthless, and players would have to find substitutes around which to base the economy. If you want a good example, take any multiplayer game with a player-driven economy in which there's no destruction, and look at what happens to its currency shortly after release.

3. Because the amount of assets destroyed is proportional to the amount of assets risked. If production doubles tomorrow, but destruction is still intact, then gankers will make twice as much money, for example, because haulers will tend to be twice as fat. It's an overly-simplified example, but a valid one.

4. The chart I linked specifically says "pvp losses," and also specifically mentions that they're higher in empire. Also, I don't agree with the second part of your point. High-sec pvpers play for a specific type of gameplay. If that's gone, they're unlikely to move to null. I know that I wouldn't, and I know that a lot of people I talk to in the community on a daily basis wouldn't. Some would, but it would be a small amount. You know how you (and others sharing your line of arguments) keep saying how high-sec miners, missioners, etc, are interested in doing their specific things, and if those things are taken away, they'll just go elsewhere instead of changing up their play style at the whims of other players? That's more or less a universal principle.

It's not the quantity - its the quality. People are frustrated by how easy it is to violate the law, about bumping, about hyperdunking, about one sided wars. It's not the isk damage, it's the frustration of being forced into PvP that you don't want.

Awoxing has been removed. Theft isnt an issue as long as you have nothing to steal that is placed in a public hangar or POS, or give out any roles. And wardecs are an easy mechanic to avoid, if you dont belong in any alliance, as there is already an alliance out there that allows you to join just so you can transfer your war to it, and then leave, allowing your corp to avoid the wardec.

So there is literally nothing preventing you from recruiting players into your corp, or joining other players corps.

So because you said it, that's fact is it? I assume that means that you will not be providing actual proof?

And I don;t know what Veers does, isn't he an incursion runner or something? I imagine if he joined a corp he'd have other things to worry about since everyone in this forum seems to have a massive problem with Veers, so perhaps for him it's not an option, but a couple of the random little corps some of my alts are in have started more actively recruiting now, so yes, I believe people will recruit.

To more fully quote you:

"First off, the suggestion is within the complaints of how they want to stop the nerf from happening in the first place. But even then, the people who complain about the nerfs, stop complaining after a while, because they learn to accept it and move on. I mean, honestly, when was the last time you heard a ganker complain about how Mining barge HP was buffed, on the forums?

And yet, on the opposite side, we have people who constantly complain about ganking and bumping, while not lifting a finger to mitigate the risk, work around the problem and safely haul and mine. "

So that's not you suggesting that the ganker side is superior because the carebear side complains forever, while the gankers move on, even though it's clearly not the case based on the amount of times gankers bring up "the history of nerfs" whenever a carebear makes a suggestion.

I'm well aware that existing null groups are fighting, just like they always have. But there's still loads of people who don't live in and have never lived in null complaining about the blue doughnut. They don't do a goddamn thing.

You don;t see why it's a problem that a systems designed to let people work together is mostly used by solo layers an their alts?

And sure, you can set up a POS, but you can do that with one guy too. The second you get beyond an insignificant size you'll just get wardecced and have your POS destroyed anyway, or you'll have to pay billions defending it which it definitely won't make you in any reasonable amount of time.

To be honest, the state of the game speaks for itself. You can;t name any significantly sized industry corporations in highsec not padded out with alts. The reason for that is that any benefit you might theoretically have are outweighed by the fact that you'll be destroyed.

I'm aware. Are you aware that a competent awoxer can do so with just tutorial skills? Are you aware that real noobs quite often skill in multiple areas? Are you aware that claiming to have attempted missions, something a lot of noobs do, is a further good reason have have prior trained a few additional gunnery skills?

And yes, I'm saying EVE-Uni proves a bad experience, since it's one experience. The great thing about EVE is that you used to be able to come in and do what you want. Now you pretty much have to move out to null or WH space if you want to do anything beyond PvP outside of an NPC corp. Joining what is effectively a corp that adds linear progression to EVE is hardly what I'd consider a good idea.

This doesn't actually work anymore, hasn't for years.

If I had a guess in summary to all of this, it's probably that CCP doesn't want to discourage new capsuleers early on and encourage an increase in new capsuleers; not saying it's correct, but that would be my reasoning. Plus, established capsuleers have significant advantages, and this is a way of negating the lvl 85 from just continually monkeystomping the brand new guy.

Actually, looking at it that way makes a lot of sense. +1 to you good sir