Nope. The vast majority of my PvP happens in lowsec/nullsec. The personal impact on me would be more risk, as my highsec activities are overwhelmingly PvE and market/industry PvP that would be targets for combat PvP aggression.
(Although I expect the impact would be fairly minor, as I know how to avoid PvP threats and don’t AFK obliviously through dangerous situations.)
slapping an arbitrary time restriction on attacking players that would protect your own alts.
That is utter nonsense. Not only do I not have any alts within the 30 day window (or any real use for characters with such little SP) I explicitly included a mechanic where characters that do alt-only things lose their immunity. Veterans would gain very little from having PvP-immune alts that are restricted to newbie-level activities.
Arguably the most important core mechanic in EVE is a player-driven economy with PvE and combat PvP being core mechanisms for supply and demand respectively.
And, again, the player-driven economy is PvP. It is deliberately set up as competitive capitalism where success or failure is determined by how well you do compared to other players, and where being defeated by better players is a common and expected outcome. EVE’s PvE elements, where you are competing against NPCs and don’t have to interact with other players, are its least important parts and could be removed entirely with minimal disruption to the rest of the game.
Subscriptions are a struggle to win people over with in the first place, and that becomes even harder to justify when a new player can log in, start building up then get wiped out by the alt of a veteran on a free account in a catalyst.
And what’s the alternative? Change EVE into a completely different game, stop pursuing new customers who are excited about the idea of a game where a free account with a Catalyst can have a meaningful impact, and pander to PvE-only farmers who want zero-risk wealth accumulation until they get bored and move on to the next farming game? EVE has survived by keeping its identity as a PvP sandbox, not by trying to appeal to players who want a completely different game.
Yes, it is a joke that you think your definition of PvP as “the primary driving force” is something other people need to take into consideeration when they post.
If PvP is not the primary driving force behind the EVE economy then what is? Where does demand come from, if not destruction in combat PvP?
So then you don’t engage in PvP at all either? What is it you even do in the game? Meta items aren’t just “slight variations”, they allow you the ability to fit your ships in different ways without crippling them too much in certain areas.
You’re obsessively focusing on specific fits and ignoring the fact that I’m talking about general gameplay concepts. Having a module with -5 CPU is not an essential gameplay feature, it’s a minor detail of a particular implementation of EVE’s ship/module balancing. If ships were re-balanced around not having meta modules the game would continue on with minimal apparent changes. The exact fits would change a bit, just like they do with any balance changes, but they would continue to be used in pretty much the same ways.
And, as I said, meta modules could easily be implemented in the normal manufacturing process alongside T1 and T2. Now ships wouldn’t even have to be re-balanced at all.
That’s trading you’re thinking of. Mining is the getting of the stuff, trading is the selling of the stuff.
And you can’t separate the two because minerals themselves have no value or purpose until you either sell them on the market (PvP) or use them in the subsequent steps in the industry process (also PvP). A cargo hold full of raw minerals is an indeterminate state where success or failure depends on how you finish the activity.
Contrast that with combat PvE where, while some of the reward has to be cashed out, the game mechanics directly put ISK into your wallet as a reward.
I’m not, that is a fact, plain and simple.
Stop lying. You are lying about me supporting arena PvP, and now you are lying about the fact that you said this lie in the first place.