These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CCP - Rookie System Rules Clarification

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#101 - 2012-06-14 16:17:49 UTC
None of this would be an issue if people weren't pathetic enough to go shoot at rookies in the first place.

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#102 - 2012-06-14 16:30:21 UTC
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
None of this would be an issue if people weren't pathetic enough to go shoot at rookies in the first place.
…except that you have to be able to do so, otherwise it would create such a ridiculously huge and abusable loophole to hide stuff behind.
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#103 - 2012-06-14 16:32:39 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
None of this would be an issue if people weren't pathetic enough to go shoot at rookies in the first place.
…except that you have to be able to do so, otherwise it would create such a ridiculously huge and abusable loophole to hide stuff behind.


Please explain, in detail, how you believe this is the case.

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
ISD LoneLynx
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#104 - 2012-06-14 16:53:33 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD LoneLynx
Some posts were deleted as inappropriate personal attacks or for being inconstructive (along with replies for such posts)

Keep your discussion with decent grade of respects to your colleagues.

ISD LoneLynx Lieutenant Support Team and Resources [STAR] Interstellar Services Department
No More Heroes
Boomer Humor
Snuffed Out
#105 - 2012-06-14 17:00:44 UTC
GM Homonoia wrote:
I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. They are still trying to figure out how to read the overview and how to right click; messing with them at that point in their career is something for bullies who have something to compensate for and only dare to pick on the smallest, weakest boy in kindergarten.


Seems pretty clear to me.

.
Trappist Monk
Doomheim
#106 - 2012-06-14 17:06:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Trappist Monk
THE L0CK wrote:
Trappist Monk wrote:
Savage Angel wrote:
Now we see true colors. ITT a bunch of jerks trying to find any loophole to be a jerk. Read the GM response - the rule is vague to keep you jackals from doing just that.

If the rules are written well and the system is designed well, there should be no loopholes.


And we have volumes of well written law books and yet there are still loopholes. The same would happen here, CCP could grab their lawyer, have him write the entire hall of Eve laws and bylaws, and we would still end up with people finding any little loophole or simply claiming that they didn't know because they couldn't be ass'd to read the Encyclopedia Britannica of Eve rules.
GM Homonia, I feel, has given a very well defined answer that suits the purpose very well. You guys are looking for a number and that will not work. I can easily give you several loophole scenario's when we base a rookie's status on just his age. It is better that they have more of a gray area where they can handle things case by case. Mean while I 'm sure you guys can step up a little and hunt players who are a couple months old, I'm fairly certain you may be able to handle them.

You're missing the point. The complexity of law isn't necessary or applicable here. More to the point, complex rules would be unnecessary if the game were designed with noob protection in mind, instead of as an afterthought 9 years later.

Let me put it another way: most of you are talking about new PLAYERS, i.e. people who haven't played EVE before and need time to acclimate. The rest of us are talking about new CHARACTERS, who can be 6 yr vets or new players.

The issue here should be relatively obvious. If you make rules based on the age of the CHARACTER, then creative vets are going to use noob alts to stir up trouble or to make themselves immune to attack or, worse still, use them to get other people warned/banned.

It's reasonable to want to protect new PLAYERS, but creating random, vague, ill conceived, poorly implemented, inconsistently applied rules isn't going to do that. All it does is create minor **** storms like this one. If the goal of the rules is to protect new PLAYERS, then there should be a safe, insulated starting zone (preferably implemented as a "simulator" inside a station that you must graduate from to join the real eve), that allows real noobs to learn the game and its consequences without having to implement a bunch of halfass **** rules that never address the core issue: new player retention. As is typical for CCP (and, lets face it, many large bureaucracies), they're focused on the symptoms rather than the cause. At its root its the same issue that plagues EVE in many other ways, its an incredibly complicated game with no real user instructions.

So, yes, I agree we should protect new players. Everyone else can suck my Howitzer. Unless CCP wants to spend a LOT of time micromanaging new player relations in EVE, they need to walk this rule change back to something simple and easy to remember and then publish it. Something like, no pvp, no theft, no bumping, no griefing, no nothing in rookie systems and only rookie systems. All of you should expect to see an increase in "noobs" provoking you to see if they can get you banned.
Ban Bindy
Bindy Brothers Pottery Association
True Reign
#107 - 2012-06-14 17:09:16 UTC
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
None of this would be an issue if people weren't pathetic enough to go shoot at rookies in the first place.


This.

Posting whines onto this thread about needing to clarify what is a rookie just shows how desperate so many people are to shoot rookies in the first place. The screams for definition are, as usual, requests for a way around the rules. Leave the rookies alone.
Trappist Monk
Doomheim
#108 - 2012-06-14 17:10:37 UTC
No More Heroes wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. They are still trying to figure out how to read the overview and how to right click; messing with them at that point in their career is something for bullies who have something to compensate for and only dare to pick on the smallest, weakest boy in kindergarten.


Seems pretty clear to me.

too bad they muddled it in the other threads. if it were this simple, i would agree with you. but it isn't, as they're creeping the changes into non-rookie systems
Trappist Monk
Doomheim
#109 - 2012-06-14 17:11:37 UTC
Ban Bindy wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
None of this would be an issue if people weren't pathetic enough to go shoot at rookies in the first place.


This.

Posting whines onto this thread about needing to clarify what is a rookie just shows how desperate so many people are to shoot rookies in the first place. The screams for definition are, as usual, requests for a way around the rules. Leave the rookies alone.

a 6yr vet who sets up a noob scout alt is not a noob. for god's sake listen to yourself. its like you never played this game.
Ban Bindy
Bindy Brothers Pottery Association
True Reign
#110 - 2012-06-14 17:13:54 UTC
If a few older player's alts get protected under these new rules, what's the harm? CCP can probably tell when it's a true new account versus a newbie created on an older players account. Might lead to new rules on exploits. That's fine. Protecting rookie players is important enough that it has to happen even if it allows some older players to abuse the rookie protection.
Ban Bindy
Bindy Brothers Pottery Association
True Reign
#111 - 2012-06-14 17:14:52 UTC
Trappist Monk wrote:
Ban Bindy wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
None of this would be an issue if people weren't pathetic enough to go shoot at rookies in the first place.


This.

Posting whines onto this thread about needing to clarify what is a rookie just shows how desperate so many people are to shoot rookies in the first place. The screams for definition are, as usual, requests for a way around the rules. Leave the rookies alone.

a 6yr vet who sets up a noob scout alt is not a noob. for god's sake listen to yourself. its like you never played this game.


For god's sake listen to yourself. It's like you never did anything but play this game and it's far, far too important to you.
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
#112 - 2012-06-14 17:27:23 UTC
Trappist Monk wrote:
THE L0CK wrote:
Trappist Monk wrote:
Savage Angel wrote:
Now we see true colors. ITT a bunch of jerks trying to find any loophole to be a jerk. Read the GM response - the rule is vague to keep you jackals from doing just that.

If the rules are written well and the system is designed well, there should be no loopholes.


And we have volumes of well written law books and yet there are still loopholes. The same would happen here, CCP could grab their lawyer, have him write the entire hall of Eve laws and bylaws, and we would still end up with people finding any little loophole or simply claiming that they didn't know because they couldn't be ass'd to read the Encyclopedia Britannica of Eve rules.
GM Homonia, I feel, has given a very well defined answer that suits the purpose very well. You guys are looking for a number and that will not work. I can easily give you several loophole scenario's when we base a rookie's status on just his age. It is better that they have more of a gray area where they can handle things case by case. Mean while I 'm sure you guys can step up a little and hunt players who are a couple months old, I'm fairly certain you may be able to handle them.

You're missing the point. The complexity of law isn't necessary or applicable here. More to the point, complex rules would be unnecessary if the game were designed with noob protection in mind, instead of as an afterthought 9 years later.

Let me put it another way: most of you are talking about new PLAYERS, i.e. people who haven't played EVE before and need time to acclimate. The rest of us are talking about new CHARACTERS, who can be 6 yr vets or new players.

The issue here should be relatively obvious. If you make rules based on the age of the CHARACTER, then creative vets are going to use noob alts to stir up trouble or to make themselves immune to attack or, worse still, use them to get other people warned/banned.

It's reasonable to want to protect new PLAYERS, but creating random, vague, ill conceived, poorly implemented, inconsistently applied rules isn't going to do that. All it does is create minor **** storms like this one. If the goal of the rules is to protect new PLAYERS, then there should be a safe, insulated starting zone (preferably implemented as a "simulator" inside a station that you must graduate from to join the real eve), that allows real noobs to learn the game and its consequences without having to implement a bunch of halfass **** rules that never address the core issue: new player retention. As is typical for CCP (and, lets face it, many large bureaucracies), they're focused on the symptoms rather than the cause. At its root its the same issue that plagues EVE in many other ways, its an incredibly complicated game with no real user instructions.

So, yes, I agree we should protect new players. Everyone else can suck my Howitzer. Unless CCP wants to spend a LOT of time micromanaging new player relations in EVE, they need to walk this rule change back to something simple and easy to remember and then publish it. Something like, no pvp, no theft, no bumping, no griefing, no nothing in rookie systems and only rookie systems. All of you should expect to see an increase in "noobs" provoking you to see if they can get you banned.


You and I are actually on the same page, we are just seeing different conclusions to the matter. The main problem that many of us are talking about is that the infraction in question that spawned this thread along with its brother yesterday, is that the rookies are being targeted while running this epic arc mission outside of the rookie systems and they may only be days old. So should a box appear telling them that by accepting this quest they acknowledge that leaving the system may result in injury or death by a player with nothing better to do? And you can't tell me that players can't tell the difference. I make a living myself scanning out mission runners and pissing them off and I find that a frigate is much harder to pinpoint than a battleship and that tells me that these people really have to work hard to make the mistake.
On the same note we now have a GM claiming that there will be blanket bans in the starter systems thus giving older players immunity. I agree that this is also wrong.
I also agree that a rookie in a badger suddenly hauling millions in goods most likely isn't a rookie.
I agree that a rookie who heads into lowsec to watch a gate is definitely not a rookie.
I also agree that not everybody who runs the epic arcs is not rookie.
But as the GM stated, if they tell us that a rookie is somebody who is 8 days old, players will just hunt people at 9 days. You draw a line and people will find a way to bend it. You leave it gray and they tend to be a bit more cautious.


And Mr. ISD guy, why did you delete my question to Tippia? I did not personally attack him, it dealt directly with the rest of the thread, and was essentially the same question asked as the guy above me (now above you), only worded differently. Why did my question go away.

Do you smell what the Lock's cooking?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#113 - 2012-06-14 17:30:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Please explain, in detail, how you believe this is the case.
If it is made absolutely and in every way illegal to attack rookies, then anyone with any kinds of brains will keep creating rookies for any form of risky hauling, travel, and/or spying.

Even if (in fact, especially if) there are non-public GM-discretion rules that someone who's using his umpty-eleventh recycled alt to do this will not be considered a rookie and is free to attack, there is no way for the rest of us to determine this and figure out that, yes, we can indeed attack this apparent rookie without censure, because he is in fact not a rookie at all. Even tying it to the account age and providing a public “newbie” flag on characters on that account will not stop this — people will use trials and buddy accounts to create the same protection against their characters. The outside capriciousness of the GMs' decisions makes it suicidal to try to stop even a blatantly obvious non-rookie because there is no way of knowing whether they will think it's as obvious as you do (and the obviousness might turn out to be wrong).

Suddenly, we have an entire class of characters that can do immense damage to people around them, but which cannot be retaliated against or interdicted. This would be far more damaging to the game than the occasional innocent rookie getting blown up.

Ban Bindy wrote:
If a few older player's alts get protected under these new rules, what's the harm? CCP can probably tell when it's a true new account versus a newbie created on an older players account. Might lead to new rules on exploits. That's fine. Protecting rookie players is important enough that it has to happen even if it allows some older players to abuse the rookie protection.
The harm is that we can't make the distinction, so the GMs would never have the opportunity to make it — no-one will be stupid enough to attack such a character because you never know (and that's also why the moronic “try it — if you get banned it was wrong” argument presented earlier is so insanely and laughably stupid). It creates a layer of protection that these older players should never have, and it does so because it is impossible to distinguish them from actual rookies by those who really need to be able to make that distinction — the players.
Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#114 - 2012-06-14 17:35:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Mrr Woodcock
Personally, I'm really at a loss for words here, sept this. Good for CCP. It's really very very simple, just leave the new players alone. Get it, just leave them alone. When in doubt just don't mess with them. Once again all this ragging debate to simply preserve the right for weak PVP players to kill the newest players in the game. Honestly it just never ceases to amaze me.

I not for one single second, believe this is what CCP envisioned when they created this game. It's bad for there business, for these guys to run off the new talent before they even get started. It's bad for real PVP'ers as they end up ditching the game before they ever have the opportunity to improve, then bring a real fight to guys like me. IMO it just all around sucks. It's just bad in virtually all aspects, except for providing the weakest of targets for so called PVP players that can do no better.

Then there's you guys that have to define when there not new anymore, Gawd really!

Then there's Sunshine and Lollipops, my gawd new chars are going to rule the universe.
Chandaris
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#115 - 2012-06-14 17:40:54 UTC
Stay out of the rookie systems, and if you have to go to them don't go there with the intention of greifing / killing / stealing from the noobs..

It's not that hard, and if you're looking for cut and dry rules you won't get them. The Gm's likely use a heavy amount of judgement as not two situations in eve are the same.

If you wanna grief people, don't do it in the newb systems.. it is that simple.. you're over thinking it.
Talon SilverHawk
Patria o Muerte
#116 - 2012-06-14 17:42:51 UTC
Chandaris wrote:
Stay out of the rookie systems, and if you have to go to them don't go there with the intention of greifing / killing / stealing from the noobs..

It's not that hard, and if you're looking for cut and dry rules you won't get them. The Gm's likely use a heavy amount of judgement as not two situations in eve are the same.

If you wanna grief people, don't do it in the newb systems.. it is that simple.. you're over thinking it.



Why would someone even want to, really ?

Tal

Tokclik
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#117 - 2012-06-14 17:43:20 UTC
This thread is why we need a thumbs-down/dislike button
Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#118 - 2012-06-14 17:43:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Mrr Woodcock
Yea, very simple. What she said. and he said +1 +1
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#119 - 2012-06-14 17:45:13 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
The rookie help chat channel auto opens for the first, what, two weeks? Maybe that's a good definition of a rookie.


Uhm....
My alt account, 2 weeks old, has two chat chanells. Local, and corp. Those are the only two tabs that have ever opened for me, ever, unless I joined a corp or joined a new chat chanel.

Even if this "rookie help" channel did open for a rookie, you don't have access to what channels another player is in unless you're in that channel. You missed what the OP is asking.

Who is considered a rookie, or is the entire system considered off limits because it's assumed that only rookies are in those systems?

Is a veteran player with an alt on the same account as their main considered a rookie?

Is a veteran alt account considered a rookie?

Is it ok for a rookie to be hostile towards another rookie in those systems?


3 days in on my alt account, I had two guys warp to me in Clouster and try to bate me into attacking them. They obviously thought I was a noob and would fall for it. They obviously didn't know the rules, and they weren't what I would call "veteran" players.

Coinsidentally, I had no idea clouster was a rookie system until a day ago. Rookie systems are a part of the EVE universe, and veterans live them. It's well enough to say that rookies need to be left alone so they can learn the game and I agree with that 100%, but it's not possible to tell who a rookie is.

Nor does the rule protect a rookie who needs to leave that system to purchase or pick up something they purchased. The rule only portects people in specific systems and that's a little misleading, non transparent, and not good enough.

Instead of saying you're not allowed to do something that, frankly, very few people are even aware of, CCP should code the rule in.

New accounts need a rookie timer applied to them. The timer will prevent other players from taking hostile actions against a new account for a set amount of time, if the player attempts to enter a system under specific threshold then they'll be warned that the timer will be removed, and if the player attempts a hostile action against another person then they'll be warned the timer will be removed.

This will protct new players in the rookie systems as well as surrounding systems so that they have sufficient time to learn the mechanics, as well as protect them from can flipping, without making them oblivious to can flipping.


Think about this. A new player that, for whatever strange reason, wants to do mining. They log into the game on day 2, in the evening, and all the belts in the rookie system are gone; so they leave that system for one nextdoor and fine a belt to mine. How safe are they, and is it there fault that all the blets in the rookie system were eaten during the day and now have to unknowingly subject themselves to the misreants of the EVE universe?
Dakeen Kurvora
Doomheim
#120 - 2012-06-14 17:45:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Dakeen Kurvora
I'm still not understanding any kind of issue with the simple rule of don't mess with rookies?

You scan down a potential gank victim in high sec, check him out and he is a under a month old. Move on!

You find a procurer mining in high sec belt while your out ganking miners, check him. Under a month? Move on!

Rookie grabs your bait can? Let him leave!

What is wrong with any of that? Afraid it might be an alt gaining Intel on you.... in high sec? Seriously?

A rookie comes into your low sec/null system and hangs around longer than he should? Blast him. You might -maybe- get a warning sure, then just kindly explain to the GM that he overstayed his welcome, or you warned him. Especially true if they happen to be attempting to follow you or just floating around outside a gate or station, for an extended period --read: like 10+ minutes--

Probably don't have to worry much about rookies in Null. I've seen many of Rookie ships left behind by the NPC gate guards.

Use your brain that's all the rule asks for, if your brain fails you then take the slap on the wrist and move on. Thanks to kill reports there is a clear difference between an "oops" every once in a great while and a supposed "oops" 4 times in the same day.

To add in about flagging Rookies in any form: Flagging Rookies only makes it easier to spot them for people who want to attack them. Yes this does make it easier to spot who is griefing them, but those that want to still will, and be more ruthless about it knowing they will be banned. Making them immune to aggression opens a windows for exploitation, the phrase "Your an idiot if you don't transport stuff using a rookie alt" would become extremely popular overnight. It happens in other games with similar mechanics.