Rather simply: if the faction police declare in local that you're an outlaw based on your security status, you are flagged with RED until you enter a system where they won't chase you.

Actually being punished for being a bad guy? Oh NO

4. Security rating gains and losses will be applied once every 20 minutes for a small set value and only once for each unique
character in 24 hours.
- I don't fully understand this concept.

1. Players with any negative security rating are free targets in high sec. (-0.1 to -10.0)
- Sounds good but maybe give the would be victim a warning that they are being engaged.

2. Engaging a player with a negative security rating will not result in a security rating loss.
- Could actually make a true Bounty Hunter career.

3. Successfully killing a player with negative security rating will result in a security rating gain.
- Good as well, give a larger positive security increase based on how low the 'pirate' security status is i.e. killing -10 sec gives more sec increase than killing a 'pirate' with -8 sec.

4. Security rating gains and losses will be applied once every 20 minutes for a small set value and only once for each unique
character in 24 hours.
- I don't fully understand this concept.

5. Killing NPCs will no longer have an impact on security rating.
- Instead of this, decrease the sec gain from NPCs.

Pretty fair concept. You do realize we can change which color tags show up to minimize our confusion.

If you shoot a suspect, you get a suspect flag (I think).

Why should yellow be a free target? Yellow isn't supposed to be a free target and neither are suspects. If you shoot yellow, you get concorded. If you shoot a suspect, you get a suspect flag (I think).

What reason do you have to change this aspect of gameplay and how do you intend to balance its effects?

And for 5, i could see that for already pirates to get back to 0.0 security rating. But i think security rating should be about player interactions, positive and negative. Not player computer interaction.

Yes, but think about this, say you bought a 'PVP God' character off of the bazaar but he had a -10 sec status. Unless I am missing something, there should be more than just one way to redeem yourself.

Yes. Clearly, what we need if for LITERALLY EVERYONE who has ever misclicked or misunderstood the highsec agro rules to be fair game to everyone. That's a wonderful way to introduce newbies tot he game, isn't it.

Hell, the new order guys say people shoot at bumpers and get themselves concorded, what do you think people doing things like that are going to do when they realise they're fair game to every single person in highsec?

Why should the system change anyway? And why should people who are currently perfectly fine to fly around in highsec need to go kill their alts a few dozen times to get back in, since that'll be the only (Or at least the easiest and cheapest) way for most people to do it after all.

Only problem I can think of now is that it would require a complete reset of Personal Security Ratings that we have now. Would this be a bad thing though?

New order was an example. they state that people misunderstand highsec mechanics and attack bumping ships.

If a person does not understand highsec aggro mechanics and attacks a ship they shouldn't, getting themselves concorded, under your proposal they could well find themselves fair game to absolutely everyone who lives in highsec, with no real way to fix their sec status. A lot of the people who do this will be new players.

Now, can you explain why you think that is a good idea?

And can you also explain why killing your own alts should be BY FAR the safest, easiest and cheapest way back into highsec?

Personally, I don't see the usefulness of knowing someone is -2 or lower unless I can legally shoot them, or they can legally shoot me.

Currently the Personal Security Rating system is complicated and incoherent. There color coding of players is confusing and the meaning of the colors is not very intuitive.

This is one of the things that i remember from my New Player Experience. Shooting a guy with an orange label and then getting concorded. That incident really wrecked my confidence in starting PVP. And i know that we have the safety button now, but I'm sure it's still confusing to new players when they're not allowed to shoot someone with negative security.

What I propose:

Redesign security status to be simple to players.
1. Players with any negative security rating are free targets in high sec. (-0.1 to -10.0)
2. Engaging a player with a negative security rating will not result in a security rating loss.
3. Successfully killing a player with negative security rating will result in a security rating gain.
4. Security rating gains and losses will be applied once every 20 minutes for a small set value and only once for each unique character killed in 24 hours.
5. Killing NPCs will no longer have an impact on security rating.
6. New players will start with a small positive security rating and a message will prompt as they approach negative rating, to prevent abuse. Also they will not receive a color coating for their positive rating. (start at +0.5 and 0.0 to +1.0 is no color?)
7. Accessibility and CONCORD intervention based on security rating will remain the same for negative security pilots.

(maybe a cool, dynamic counter-mechanic?) 8. Accessibility to pirate faction systems will be limited from positive security pilots in a similar fashion.

What this will do:
Disambiguate the negative security rating color coding to everyone. Now when you see someone that's Yellow or Red you'll know they're free targets. And when you see someone in a shade of blue, there's a good chance they're friendly, thought not 100% sure thing. And visa-versa as a red, if you see someone blue you know they're killing pirates and if there's another red around there's a chance you can temporarily ally for a common goal, and probably backstab immediately after.

This will also make it harder to gain and lose security rating. So if you are red you earned it, and likewise if you are blue, you earned that too by killing reds. Pirate hunting can actually become a profession without also having to become a pirate yourself.

Null bears won't automatically be high positive ratings for no reason. New players won't be confused by the mechanics anymore.

Would add more dynamics to low sec for sure. (including FW)

Only problem I can think of now is that it would require a complete reset of Personal Security Ratings that we have now. Would this be a bad thing though?

1) Disagree. You should not be effectively free-to-shoot across all of New Eden for one or two criminal acts. Logically perhaps, but in the realm of a PVP game absolutely not.
2) If the player is below -2 to -5 depending on the system, sure and I believe it's already this way.
3) Provided that player is an outlaw (see point 2), yay!
4) What benefit would this serve?
5) So the only way to lose sec status is to shoot players, and the only way to gain it is it engage criminals? If so, in theory I like the idea. Hard to implement though.
6) Wasn't even aware positive sec status gave you a color... what purpose would we need that for though?
7) Yep, and they should start aggressing pods too. This way I'm not sitting in Uedama, 2,000 km off a gate, with a Thrasher beside my pod waiting for an autopiloter to arrive at my scout's location.
8) I had figured it already was this way, but never been to NPC null. I do like this idea.

Yes. Clearly, what we need if for LITERALLY EVERYONE who has ever misclicked or misunderstood the highsec agro rules to be fair game to everyone. That's a wonderful way to introduce newbies tot he game, isn't it.

...The color coding is merely a function of the overview settings. While the default settings aren't very good, the "shootability" of another player can already be perfectly disambiguated by un-******* your overview. So, your idea is worthless in this regard. Not like, "of minimal value", but of absolutely, positively ZERO worth. It brings absolutely nothing to the table wrt to disambiguation that we don't already have.

It couldn't do less if it tried.

The fact that they made it DRAMATICALLY easier to raise one's sec status just a year ago means that this "feature" is basically a bug with respect to the actual design goals of the game at present.

Yeah, this is a pretty standard issue, "Carebear has "PvP" idea, swiftly learns about Malcanis's law" post.

This obvious attempt to penalize piracy would actually end up making it so that any idiot newb who screws up *at all* is suddenly fair game, all the time, everywhere he goes in space. Meanwhile, actual established players/pirates can trivially afford to buy some tags and reset their sec to neutral.

Right now I have to bait newbs into shooting at me and then I only get to kill them once. :(

This awful idea is awful and unworkable. I mean, it would be hilarious and great fun for me, but it would be hugely punitive to the people it's supposed to benefit.

Security rating is fine. Better default overview settings would be good.

I just want to reconfirm that your stance is; you can change the UI to reflect reality so it doesn't need fixing. Is this correct?

On the contrary, they made it quite a bit more difficult and then added a mechanic (that was supposed to increase low sec activity) to supplement that increase in effort.

No, my stance is that if there's a UI problem, you fix the UI problem. The overview could totally use a make-over - if not in the core functionality than, at least, in the default layout. That's a UI problem, however. You're proposing a mechanical change and claiming that it fixes a UI problem when, in fact, your mechanical change is redundant and worthless and brings nothing to the table with respect to the UI that couldn't be fixed simply by adjusting the UI itself, and not the underlying mechanics.

Oh for ****'s sake. Does this baffle 'em with bull **** pseudo-pedantry ever work on anyone? The aggregate result of tags4sec is that it is vastly easier to raise one's sec than it ever was before. To try to claim otherwise is disingenuous, bordering on outright lying.

I've change my original post a little bit. Reread it and see if it addresses any problems you have with it.

No, still a pretty awful, still subject to Malcanis's law, still unworkable all around.