Make it more appealing to women. I think trying to do this would make the game better for everyone.

or heck, you could modify it so your standings with that empire results in a faster concord response time in that space (as they remember your loyalty to them and so encourage concord to protect their ally faster)

Nono, you make a statement so the onus is on you to provide proof. Just listing EVE's expansions is meaningless so again, feel free to point out differences that support your statement.

I'm more casual of a player, and I'm sure there are people out there like me, I used to game a lot, but now not so much and want to play a little differently... eve online says they are a big sandbox, this is true, but they have no parental supervision. it is like all the bullies in the neighborhood invite the nice little kids to come play with all there toys just so the bullies can push them down, take there toys, kick dirt in there face, and than go to there friends and brag how they just punched a 4 year old in the face and took his tanka truck.

this is very discouraging for people like me who plays solo, or close to it, just playing with a small group of people, now what i suggest are some realistic changes,

Change 1

Need: some type of real security in high security systems

Scenario 1: Pilot X has high standings with Empires A, C, G, and M .. he worked hard on standings with all 4, knowing this has loaded his cargo hold with items that he can sell 20 jumps away, in a freighter if he stayed at the helm it would take 1-2 hrs, so he sets it on autopilot.

Scenario 1A: currently someone can scan your hold then bump you so that your autopilot disengages, than kill you using enough firepower, netting a big kill and lots of loot. also netting you a slight loss in security rating and little to no Empire standing loss, what i suggest is this

since Pilot X has a high Empire standing, if you attack unprovoked you loose %100 of their Empire Standing (ES), times the security rating of the system (SR)

Pilot X ES = 7.2 GǪ Security rating of the system = 0.8 Pilot Y ES = 2.4

if Pilot Y attacks and kills the ship of Pilot X the equation would be

7.2 x 0.8 = a loss of 5.76 so if he had 2.4 and - 5.76 this would = -3.36

this is not security rating, this is Empire standing, so that if you are spotted by empire you will be targeted and killed on sight, since the empire owns the gate, they kill you on the gate, also i suggest that warp disruption fields be fitted on the gates of high security systems. this doesn't mean you cant gank, it just means you cant come through the gate, so if you have a -1.0 Empire Standing (ES) you can access 0.9 systems -2.0 = 0.8 systems and so on.

Need: Low security needs to be more like what High security is now.. using the system above the only real difference is that you wouldn't have Warp bubbles on gates in low security

lets make this more complex now, freighter pilot X has ES A = 5.0 and ES G = -3.0 using the system above if i killed the freighter i would get a loss ES with Empire A, but would get a ES gain with Empire G.

make it even more complexGǪ if my alliance is in good standing with one empire, and i border that empire and contribute to that empire, my security rating should increase in consistent ratio to my contributionGǪ but if i don't contribute than security level should be lowered, movement threshold of 0.1 security point a month, and if i hold the system and contribute to that empire to get a high security system of 5.0, and i set my standings with a rival alliance to -10 and they have less than 5.0 with that same alliance they get bubbled and shot automatically at the gate, (again this doesn't mean you cant get into system, some other way. I.E. finding a wormhole).. this doesn't mean that the resources diminish .. introduce a system resource rating, this would help miners know where to go to get better material, have it linked with the sovereignty mechanic. (just like it is now)

Please comment, and criticism is welcome as long as it is constructive.

this would make mining matter again, along with making standings matter.

Let me guess, you are a highsec miner?

No the onus is on you when you dispute someones statement to actually discuss it in a reasoned manner.

Strangely why forums are also called discussion boards. You disputed my statement that I signed up under a different set of rules, you figure it out. Hell you might actually learn something.

lol Evidence?!? Who needs evidence when you have a carebear agenda to push.

It's on all of us to prove that the outlandish things Mark says AREN'T true!

Take that, logic!

I have ganked everything but miners btw, I tend to war dec them before I kill their fleets. Makes me feel good.

As I said, you have no ability to actually contribute to any discussion and frankly after a stupid statement like that you have shown you also know little about this game.

You are just embarrassing yourself.

For someone who states he likes the game, your whole posting history is full of "waaah pvp sucks, pvpers are nasty people". Like 99% of your posts.

So you also believe that EvE has not had any changes in the years that it has existed.

Actually I quite enjoy the game. However I am not clinging on to some stupid mechanics like a child scared that someone is trying to take their toy away. As for your enjoyment of these particular imbalances, that is hardly my problem but please continue to spit you dummy.

For someone who states he likes the game, your whole posting history is full of "waaah pvp sucks, pvpers are nasty people". Like 99% of your posts.

Don't worry. A couple of weeks ago he claimed to have unsubbed and is just waiting for his accounts to expire.

We can only hope, but more likely just another liar that bitches and moans while still paying CCP for a game that he hates.

Nope IM Infinity Ziona and former owner of L Dopa both of whom reside in and fight in the most active PvP systems in EvE.