These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Why allow Neuts to dock at FW stations?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Beekeeper Bob
Beekeepers Anonymous
#1 - 2012-08-04 22:38:02 UTC
Seems like this makes the station denial to your enemies a waste.
Since you can't deny access to all the FW neut alts that fly around and scout, pirate and supply FW players, they still have access to ships and materials, even though they can't dock. Roll
Please rethink this mechanic.

Signature removed - CCP Eterne
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade
Ghost Legion.
#2 - 2012-08-04 22:39:24 UTC
market business

Don't ask about Italics, just tilt your head.
Alara IonStorm
#3 - 2012-08-04 22:46:59 UTC
Yes why don't these empire stations stop all world commerce in their ports because there is a war on. Spies happen, doesn't mean they should kill the economy.
ACE McFACE
Dirt 'n' Glitter
Local Is Primary
#4 - 2012-08-04 22:50:33 UTC
But how will TeaEarlGrayHot dock his neut loki booster for 'solo pvp'?

Now, more than ever, we need a dislike button.
Beekeeper Bob
Beekeepers Anonymous
#5 - 2012-08-04 23:17:12 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Yes why don't these empire stations stop all world commerce in their ports because there is a war on. Spies happen, doesn't mean they should kill the economy.


Lots of non FW stations within a few jumps of most warzones. That is where most of the supplies are dropped anyway. Most FW stations are not supplied at all. The only reason a neut docks is to supply his alt, repair his alt's ship, or setup a new ship and bring it to him.
I have no problem with spies, but why should they be able dock at a station that doesn't want them?
If neuts are allowed to dock, may as well allow everyone, it becomes virtually the same thing.


Just throwing this out there, I don't really have faith in CCP seeing the logic behind this. Roll

Signature removed - CCP Eterne
Virgil Travis
Non Constructive Self Management
#6 - 2012-08-04 23:26:24 UTC
FW pilots and their neutral alts aren't the only ones using stations in low sec.

Unified Church of the Unobligated - madness in the method Mamma didn't raise no victims.
Amarr Agent 007
Doomheim
#7 - 2012-08-05 01:19:16 UTC
The same reason neutrals are allowe to come to port during real wars.
The benefits far outweight the potential risks.
Sarmea Moon
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2012-08-05 01:23:42 UTC
In before someone points out you can blow up neutrals in low sec:P

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse [lady of commercial virtue]. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.- James Nicoll
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade
Ghost Legion.
#9 - 2012-08-05 01:27:22 UTC
ACE McFACE wrote:
But how will TeaEarlGrayHot dock his neut loki booster for 'solo pvp'?


Two machs alpha those quite easy.

Don't ask about Italics, just tilt your head.
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade
Ghost Legion.
#10 - 2012-08-05 01:28:52 UTC
Sarmea Moon wrote:
In before someone points out you can blow up neutrals in low sec:P


Done, your welcome.

Don't ask about Italics, just tilt your head.
Lady Spank
Get Out Nasty Face
#11 - 2012-08-05 01:30:40 UTC
I'm sure retconning accessibility to stations based on FW status would go down nicely with the people that may have had their holdings stored in those stations since 2003 or whenever.

(ಠ_ృ) ~ It Takes a Million Years to Become Diamonds So Lets Just Burn Like Coal Until the Sky's Black ~ (ಠ_ృ)
ACE McFACE
Dirt 'n' Glitter
Local Is Primary
#12 - 2012-08-05 01:43:06 UTC
sYnc Vir wrote:
ACE McFACE wrote:
But how will TeaEarlGrayHot dock his neut loki booster for 'solo pvp'?


Two machs alpha those quite easy.

Not when they are cloaked

Now, more than ever, we need a dislike button.
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#13 - 2012-08-05 01:52:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Cutter Isaacson
Beekeeper Bob wrote:



Just throwing this out there, I don't really have faith in CCP seeing the logic behind this. Roll




What logic?

By definition, a neutral alt appears to be exactly that; neutral. I think you may have forgotten that this an MMORPG and that FW is a vast RPG playground. When looked at from an RPG point of view, as surely one must, the idea of blocking a neutral pilots access to a station is absurd.

Just throwing that out there, I don't really have faith that you will see the logic inherent in this.

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
Rengerel en Distel
#14 - 2012-08-05 02:39:36 UTC
It would be more logical that high sec stations wouldn't allow you to dock either. The navies chase you around, but then you can dock up? That doesn't make much sense.

With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
Marconus Orion
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#15 - 2012-08-05 02:45:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Marconus Orion
You would make null blocks mad. According to the minutes, if FW so much as interferes with null power blocks logistics, they will go out of their way to destroy FW completely to teach you a lesson not to hinder them again. Remember all aspects of EVE revolve around them, they are simply allowing you to play in low sec.

So I suggest you never bring up anything that would not go swimmingly with null blocks again. Perhaps they will let you play the game even after this thread.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#16 - 2012-08-05 02:46:18 UTC
Rengerel en Distel wrote:
It would be more logical that high sec stations wouldn't allow you to dock either. The navies chase you around, but then you can dock up? That doesn't make much sense.

I guess you hurriedly park before they get you, and they don't have a search warrant to check all the ships cluttering up the station hangar.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2012-08-05 03:14:13 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Rengerel en Distel wrote:
It would be more logical that high sec stations wouldn't allow you to dock either. The navies chase you around, but then you can dock up? That doesn't make much sense.

I guess you hurriedly park before they get you, and they don't have a search warrant to check all the ships cluttering up the station hangar.


Then they forget why they came to the station and wander off

"Little ginger moron" ~David Hasselhoff 

Want to see what Surf is training or how little isk Surf has?  http://eveboard.com/pilot/Surfin%27s_PlunderBunny
Suddenly Forums ForumKings
Doomheim
#18 - 2012-08-05 04:38:19 UTC
Marconus Orion wrote:
You would make null blocks mad. According to the minutes, if FW so much as interferes with null power blocks logistics, they will go out of their way to destroy FW completely to teach you a lesson not to hinder them again. Remember all aspects of EVE revolve around them, they are simply allowing you to play in low sec.

So I suggest you never bring up anything that would not go swimmingly with null blocks again. Perhaps they will let you play the game even after this thread.


And don't you forget it either.

Plebians.
Rico Minali
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2012-08-05 16:30:14 UTC
Because its lowsec not nullsec. If you want nullsec station mechanics, guess where you need to go.

Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing.
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#20 - 2012-08-05 16:35:45 UTC
The meaningful occupancy bit had much potential, but CCP messed it up...

Only militia members should be able to dock at militia stations and only these stations should flip with occupancy, with system upgrades only affecting these stations.

All non-militia stations should have remained completely unaffected and open to anyone. This would have yielded far more interesting gameplay.
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
12Next page