Because we play EVE, its marketed as a sandbox game, it should be a sandbox game. The developers should be performing their required role as developers of a sandbox game which is to act as referee's. They are not. The game play is stagnant. The so-called emergent gameplay is ganking (been in game since M0o and Zombie), the PvP is largely still spawn point based (been in game since 2003), the sov warefare is themepark (theres only one way to do it), the ships are imbalanced to the extent one hull, class or module (supers, caps, blops, cyno's, cats, archons) are used to the exclusion of any emergent new methods / tactics.

Stop off topic trolling.

EVE is changing all the time. These changes influence the balances between play styles and what is practically available experiences in the game. This in relation to established players as well as new ones.

I found Infinity Zionas post on the game experience in null very interesting as I have almost no personal experience of that. It seems to support that EVE is evolving in a way that limits the available gameplay. Even if the mechanics are there, the combined net result of players and game mechanics means that large parts of the possible experiences are not practically viable to engage in.

In short, EVE is becoming less of a game than what it could be. It is becoming more gamy, and less roleplaying and exploration friendly. Becoming less community oriented for non-combat players too.

The peaceful industrial high sec corporation is not viable as a lifestyle in EVE, not because it's not mechanically available, but because there are no mechanics to protect that lifestyle from other competing lifestyles in the game.

Is that your excuse for shooting fish in a barrel in highsec versus showing this loud mouthed pubbie consequences by blowing him up?

There are indeed several actions that can be taken as a reaction to a war. Most if not all of them involves dismantling the the lifestyle I was talking about, which is exactly the point.

This does not make them less fun if you were to embrace them, but it doesn't change that the lifestyle is very hard to maintain, compared to the high sec war deccing lifestyle of griefers and mercenaries.

The combat lifestyle can impose on the non-combat through wars, but the non-combat cannot impose on the combat by barring a corp from high sec for a week for instance. You can pay Concord to be passive, not active.

Not to say that it should be possible, but the balance favors the combat lifestyle.

In fact the reason we now see an almost industrial-less low and null is because its so easy to catch and kill industrial characters.

Because you lack an industrial base and market since you kill everything you see. You think we'd have cities if every immigrant was murdered by the locals as soon as they arrived. You do it to yourself so don't whine about the consequences.

As a parent as well, I think you're taking this a bit too far. She isn't part of this video game political war. Let's leave her out of it, okay?

Have some class, even if he brought her into it.

Those already exist. Few people use them correctly anyway. You don't need more safety because you're not properly using the safety you already have.

The Catalyst does not need 700 dps to kill a frigate (its intended role), ship scanners should not be free 100 accurate perves into every ship fitting.

Oh and freighters (which are currently just shuttles) need fitting options.

Change those two things you will see a lot of ganking decrease overnight.