Wouldn’t that kill lowsec? Maybe you meant “SS < -3”?
yes, I made a mistake.
Okay then.
This proposition actually makes sense: after all, if faction police hunts you (in highsec), why would it permit you to dock and would not try to imprison you, since it knows your exact location?
You want Concord to allow more pirates in HighSec???
Terrible idea. They already allow FOBs, Shasha rats, Sleeper Battleships, and Triglavians into HighSec… This would be another step backwards. Highsec is sopposed to be a fairly safe area. Let roaming pirates run around like null sec and you’ll see the economy crumble.
Recycle an alt to get into a corp to create havoc? Since when has this been an issue? I remember times when people recycled their spy alts on a regular basis just to stay in a group or hide the past devious deeds to get into another unsuspecting group. This is not abuse, it is the emergent gameplay that CCP and players used to tout about so much in the past.
Security Status loss in itself is one of the things I do not consider a penalty
anymore for people who want to engage in criminal behavior. It is easily circumvented and compensated with tags for sec, among other things. Preventing people from docking in high sec is a good thing and as pointed out above by @Ugren_Okaski having them spawn in low sec would be another angle too approach the issue. However, I do not think that this is enough as it would still only impact the criminal actors and not the other people in their group. I think it is comical that a group that harbors criminals does not experience any consequences for that action. Since we live in a dystopian universe, punishing everyone that helps/lives with/condones/ignores criminal behavior in their own ranks should be the least consequence for that if actions and choices still really matter.
No, that is not what this does. Please read the opening post carefully. What this is supposed to do is give people a chance to hunt people associated with criminal actors without having to resort to wars or ganking of their own.
no, recycle alts when they have too much kills FFS.
AND use alts to abuse this on other corporations.
completely stupid, abused, and of no effect on people who want to avoid it.
Kills outside the corp don’t matter for the flag. Only the kills done in the corp matter to create the flag. The second part is irrelevant in my opinion as it falls under the spy alt example that I described.
If people want to avoid something, they already can. Tags for security allow tornado gankers to sit in Jita despite killing haulers every day. NPC corps and corps without structures allow for people to roam around without any risk of getting a war dec. I do not see the possibility of abusing the flag as a big obstacle. I have already posted a few way to counteract abuse and more thing could be introduced.
unrelated
Therefore your proposal is completely stupid. It would only allow to abuse people who don’t understand the mechanisms, and would bring nothing more to the game.
Your proposal is not about “create content” but “create stupid mechanism that can be abused to remove concord protection from corporations”.
1 Like
People can already avoid wars, ie. risk and it brought in more people. It is time to add more risk again for corps. As I linked a few examples above, it would create a lot of potential for people who want to engage other people in low sec but care about their security status.
Yes, and this is intentional. And there are lots of ways to prevent that from happening, as described above.
unrelated.
No it would not.
Hypocrite. You want to simply allow EVERYBODY to shoot a corporation, without members of the corporation retaliating, just for the cost of adding an alt in the corp that shoots a station every 15min in a noobship.
That’s a mechanism that would lead to people leaving the game, because that’s an idea that sucks.
That’s why your proposal is stupid : it would had nothing interesting, just an over complexified way to abuse people who don’t want to spend 10h per week trying to understand the mechanisms.
1 Like
Your opinion. The above linked topics show a different story.
Not retaliating? Who said something about that? As far as I remember, the moment you legally engage someone both people have a nice little engagement timer that allows both parties to shoot each other. This would be no different.
As described above, this potential alt abuse can be prevented by expanding the FF toggle and you can kick characters from your corp before the flag goes into effect that want to do cause that problem.
You are dramatizing and projecting your own shortcomings onto others. The mechanic is very simple, it has straightforward counters and solutions and it will add interesting aspects. As described above on multiple occasions.
That didn’t hold CCP back from introducing crap in the past. Structures, FozzieSov, Blackout, gambling, Skins, Capital “balance”, Rorquals. That something is “stupid” cannot be an argument against it. Especially if the suggestion is not stupid and better laid out and thought through than most things CCP does.
1 Like
No they don’t.
And the moment your logi reps you, he gets concordokken.
Please, learn to play.
Overconvoluted implementation, that would create more issues than you think of fixing and would still not achieve anything.
Your idea is ■■■■. It’s not damatizing, I explained you why it was : it leads to abuse, it won’t achieve what it is supposed to achieve.
That’s your opinion, and considering you arenjot able to understand how much your idea sucks, it’s of zero interest.
Your idea is factually bad for the game.
Hard no to your idea for a few reasons:
-
It treats aggression in losec, which is a suspect-level offense (i.e. yellow flashy), the same as it treats aggression in hisec, which is a criminal-level (i.e. red flashy) offense. This seems…off.
-
The room for abuse here is ample. You could either lure unsuspecting rookies into a criminally flagged corp and laugh as they get ROFLSTOMPed, or join an unsuspecting corp and go on a CONCORDOKEN spree to flag the whole corp. Neither of these are desirable.
-
Your comment about Friendly Fire is irrelevant, because the whole point is to commit acts of aggression. Friendly fire would make it harder to do that, not easier.
Now, I could see corps and alliances having a “security standing” that’s an average of all of their members security ratings. This would work just like standings with NPC corps work now. But, this would only be an indicator of how “criminal” a given corp or alliance is; it wouldn’t enable free-fire in hisec on otherwise non-criminal players. That currently only relies on the actions of the individual player, and it needs to stay this way.
1 Like
No, it does not. It treats criminal actions as criminal actions. What is criminal in high sec is not criminal in low sec and that would not change. Just shooting a ship in low sec is a mere suspect action and would not count towards the flag.
You can already do that with wars. You can go on a criminal rampage in low sec but if your CEO/director/other officer does not respond to the multitude of notifications, the corp/alliance you are in is dead anyway and maybe you should consider switching to a more active group.
This has already been corrected far above as Nevyn pointed it out before you and in response to that I suggested the expansion of the system to prevent criminal acts if the FF is on. In other words, a Safety Setting system for corps/alliances.
But what would be the point of that? I already know how criminal a corp/alliance is by looking at their killboard. I cannot do anything about it, however. This has to change.
No, you are dramatizing and you do not even see it. The abuse you see (have an alt go criminal repeatedly) is counteracted in several ways:
- The expanded Friendly Fire system that can prevent going criminal altogether.
- The number of necessary criminal actions to incur the flag. If a CEO/director/other officer does not react after a few criminal flag notifications, they deserve to be flagged.
- The timer until a flag goes into effect. Even if the CEO/directors/other officers have not responded to the 50/100 notifications before, they still have hours to kick the corp/chars and the flag does not go into effect.
- Kicking people/corps, which is possible in several ways.
None of these things are rocket science or overly complicated to understand. You are dramatizing for no good reason.
I also came up with a funny idea to test the waters with this system. Since CCP loves to change things in a biweekly rhythm. such a short or month long cycle would be interesting to test the impact of such a change in criminal flag consequences, whether it would be this suggestion, limiting docking rights in high sec as I have suggested in the past or something else. 
No I am not.
It leads to abuses, and will not achieve what you claim is the goal. Basically it’s just bad.
Or don’t have access to Eve, dumbass.
unless they don’t have access to Eve, dumbass.
I did not say they were. I said that idea is stupid and will leads to more abuses. Nowhere in your explanation do you actually prevent abuses, you just claim that abuses are okay.
So you actually know and agree there would be abuses, and you claim it’s okay to have abuses.
All your idea is, is a new way to make abuses.
Vacations, work and families are for losers…
1 Like
I gave you 4 ways to prevent the things that you call “abuse”. You need to stop flailing or else you’ll miss important conversation points.
If you are in a big corp, you have several people who can do that job. If you are in a small group, you have most likely set FF to red anyway. Not relevant.
No You did not.
All you do is, claim that they are okay.
Not relevant.
Targeting another player in high security space not in your fleet makes you go suspect. Next!
Maybe CCP can fix that.
Got bad standing? No docking for you in NPC high security space.
This, if only to reduce the structure spam.
Then maybe CCP can fix it so you can kick people who are in corp and online.
Good idea. Make sure it applies to people in NPC corporations too.
If you invite Bad Bob McStab into your corporation, don’t complain when the police knock out your door looking for them.
Have you seen the NPC kills for Delve? Wasn’t the ridiculous ISK generation from super ratting responsible for serval fighter nerfs?
The cyno changes pretty much messed up most of the big blocks ability to just go wwwwww and have a response fleet cyno in on top of whoever is tackled.
Really? Go try introducing new players to this kind of “emergent social content” in the starter systems and see how long before you get banned. Ganking is tolerated in some areas, not others.
Right now you can gang 100 people, but then spend a day ratting in null or buy security tags and all your sins are forgiven. Loss of security status has to mean something more than a quick trip to the corner store for some turbo-sec-status boost.
Liking this one, even though a pod is pretty much impossible to stop in low security space, it will be really inconvenient.
This too. Never understood why this wasn’t implemented from the beginning.
I guess after you try to dock in high security space you get ‘jailed’, into the station, until you pod yourself to the nearest low-sec station? A little awkward.
You forgot limiting incursions.
If I ran a corporation, I’d want the ability to kick people for changing safety off of green too.
Lets throw all the NPC players with bad standing into bad NPC corporations that can be shot at more freely for being bad. The chose to be bad. therefore they can stay in low security space and be bad people there.
Yes please.
Like how factional warfare works, where if your alliance/corp doesn’t maintain standing, you have 24 hours to fix it or you get booted from fw.
Why would someone loose access to eve? Oh yeah, DDOS. Leadership should have better engagement in the game than a line member, like I said above, give it some hours warning so the offending player can be removed.
1 Like