These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

CCP needs to ban -5 or lower players from hi-sec

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Musashi IV
Off-World Mining
#1 - 2012-06-07 11:17:07 UTC
Why even have hi-sec or a security standing if players with -5 or lower security standing can play in hi-sec with imunity. A player who reaches -5 should be banned from entering or playing in hi-sec.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#2 - 2012-06-07 11:18:52 UTC
Because SS mechanic is a fluke.

brb
Lexmana
#3 - 2012-06-07 11:19:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Lexmana
Musashi IV wrote:
Why even have hi-sec or a security standing if players with -5 or lower security standing can play in hi-sec with imunity. A player who reaches -5 should be banned from entering or playing in hi-sec.

You can also enjoy this imunity your self by fitting ECM burst and actiaving it at Jita undock. Do it in a noob frig so you don't lose an expensive ship.
TheBreadMuncher
Protus Correction Facility Inc.
#4 - 2012-06-07 11:20:23 UTC
Let me guess. You got ganked?

"We will create the introduction thread if that is requested by the community. Also, we will have an ISD Seminar about the CCL team in the coming weeks in which you can ask your questions about the CCL team and provide some constructive feedback to us." - Countless pages of locked threads and numerous permabanned accounts later, change is coming.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#5 - 2012-06-07 11:20:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Velicitia
... Isn't a sub -5 status in HS an indicator of "You can violence them without repercussion from Concord"?

edit, yup.

Quote:
Once your security status reaches -5 you are considered an outlaw and can be attacked by players anywhere without CONCORD intervention. Be really careful about CONCORD Assembly Sovereignty! - CONCORD marks the ship as an outlaw and you are not able to jump out of the system or move in general; you will be shot down!


From here.


So... they are "banned" ... it's just up to you to enforce the "ban".

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Buoytender Bob
Ronin Exploration Mission and Mining
#6 - 2012-06-07 11:22:48 UTC
CCP needs to fix many, many things. However, this isn't one of them.

To buck the popular trend, I began to Rage Start instead of Rage Quit.

...and every time I get another piece of Carbon, I know exactly what CCP is getting this Christmas.
Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#7 - 2012-06-07 11:23:54 UTC
Mmm, the nature of a sandbox game is to give players as much freedom as possible. Your idea would limit this for some players. I don't think its a good idea.
Musashi IV
Off-World Mining
#8 - 2012-06-07 11:25:03 UTC
TheBreadMuncher wrote:
Let me guess. You got ganked?


Ive been ganked a number of times over the years but now CCP seems to support goonswarm putting bounties on ships.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#9 - 2012-06-07 11:25:29 UTC
No, they really don't.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#10 - 2012-06-07 11:27:34 UTC
Singulis Pacifica wrote:
Your idea would limit this for some players.



That's why they should remove SS mechanic completely. Lol

brb
Lexmana
#11 - 2012-06-07 11:31:36 UTC
Alexandra Delarge wrote:
CCP needs to perma ban bot users.

OP uses bots.


And this is the OP in that thread for all of you that don't like to follow links:

Musashi IV wrote:
Several months ago I created my own mining bot program. I was pulling in about 250 mil a day but was not satisfied. How could I raise the price of ICE? The price of ICE was low because of mining bots. I decided to start writing anti-botting threads on all the forums. I wanted CCP to change the mechanics of the game to put other bot programs out of action. I knew I could change my program to compensate for any changes CCP could make. After several months of campaigning against bots CCP finally started taking action against them. The only problem is they started banning players instead of changing the game mechanics. I soon got banned. Dont worry this is not my main char, its only an alt.


BTW, this is the best bot tears thread in a while.
evereplicant
Doomheim
#12 - 2012-06-07 11:32:02 UTC
Tippia wrote:
No, they really don't.


Tippia I have yet to see you agree with anything that anyone posts, its becoming tedious.
The boundaries seems to be getting more and more blurred. YOu want to allow any one and everyone to go anywhere and everywhere and do whatever they like without consequence.

Fine lets just remove securtiy altogether because quite frankly its meaningless and pointless, because game mechanics allows you to circumvent said 'supposed restrictions'
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#13 - 2012-06-07 11:35:20 UTC
Musashi IV wrote:
TheBreadMuncher wrote:
Let me guess. You got ganked?


Ive been ganked a number of times over the years but now CCP seems to support goonswarm putting bounties on ships.


In what way?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Nirnias Stirrum
UberWTFBBQ and Battle Technologies
#14 - 2012-06-07 11:36:56 UTC
Posting in a "waaaaaaa i got ganked" whine thread.
Kohiko Sun
Stormcrows
#15 - 2012-06-07 11:37:14 UTC
To prove this immunity exists, get to outlaw status and fly a faction-fit CNR through high sec. Please, record it for peer review, and, remember, it must be repeated at least three times to be considered a valid experiment.
Alexandra Delarge
The Korova
#16 - 2012-06-07 11:38:46 UTC
Musashi IV wrote:
Ive been ganked a number of times over the years

Tell us which one of your bots was ganked.

Rex Garvin

Dan Garvin

Eric Garvin

Egor Smursh

Arkady Smursh
Velicitia
XS Tech
#17 - 2012-06-07 11:43:49 UTC
evereplicant wrote:
Tippia wrote:
No, they really don't.


Tippia I have yet to see you agree with anything that anyone posts, its becoming tedious.
The boundaries seems to be getting more and more blurred. YOu want to allow any one and everyone to go anywhere and everywhere and do whatever they like without consequence.

Fine lets just remove securtiy altogether because quite frankly its meaningless and pointless, because game mechanics allows you to circumvent said 'supposed restrictions'



Funny story bro ...

-5.00 sec status grants you "outlaw" status, and ANY OTHER CAPSULEER CAN SHOOT YOU WITHOUT CONCORD REPERCUSSIONS.

So, pretty much, it's your fault if you ignore a -5 pilot and subsequently get ganked.

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#18 - 2012-06-07 11:47:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
evereplicant wrote:
Tippia I have yet to see you agree with anything that anyone posts, its becoming tedious.
You haven't been paying attention then.
Maybe if the OP had provided even the slightest bit of reason or argument, he would have stood a chance, but he fumbled that one right out the gate. So no, CCP does not need to ban anyone from highsec. Well, maybe the OP if his botting ways have continued, but that's a different issue.

Quote:
YOu want to allow any one and everyone to go anywhere and everywhere and do whatever they like without consequence.
Nope. I don't want to disallow people from going somewhere just because the people living there can't be bothered with enforcing the consequences themselves.

Quote:
Fine lets just remove securtiy altogether because quite frankly its meaningless and pointless, because game mechanics allows you to circumvent said 'supposed restrictions'
That makes no sense. Security is exactly the mechanism that allows you to provide those consequences — the game mechanics do not allow you to circumvent them. Quite the opposite: the mechanics create the restrictions and circumventing them would be an exploit.
Bossy Lady
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#19 - 2012-06-07 11:48:49 UTC
Musashi IV wrote:
Why even have hi-sec or a security standing if players with -5 or lower security standing can play in hi-sec with imunity. A player who reaches -5 should be banned from entering or playing in hi-sec.



Why do CCP "need" to do this?

Maybe they "need" to kick all characters more than 30 days old out of hi-sec instead. How's that sound?

Posting on this character because apparently some people get upset when they're asked difficult questions. M.
evereplicant
Doomheim
#20 - 2012-06-07 11:48:59 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
evereplicant wrote:
Tippia wrote:
No, they really don't.


Tippia I have yet to see you agree with anything that anyone posts, its becoming tedious.
The boundaries seems to be getting more and more blurred. YOu want to allow any one and everyone to go anywhere and everywhere and do whatever they like without consequence.

Fine lets just remove securtiy altogether because quite frankly its meaningless and pointless, because game mechanics allows you to circumvent said 'supposed restrictions'



Funny story bro ...

-5.00 sec status grants you "outlaw" status, and ANY OTHER CAPSULEER CAN SHOOT YOU WITHOUT CONCORD REPERCUSSIONS.

So, pretty much, it's your fault if you ignore a -5 pilot and subsequently get ganked.


Oh dear another noob, yes but the people you are ganking are usually NOOBS and NOT fitted for pvp! so they wouldnt even shoot you back most of the time. Why dont you actually grow some balls and perhaps shoot people who can shoot back? or are you to pvp carebear to be able to do that. Becuase people may complain about miners or carebears but people ganking noobies in highsec are also carebears from a pvp perspective, cos quite frankly they are too lame or useless to fight with real pvpers...isnt that called bullying in RL?
123Next pageLast page