These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Trappist Monk
Doomheim
#201 - 2012-06-14 19:32:07 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
If I had to be totally honest here, I'd say that adults are just giant children who take their fun more seriously. Which means that some people are going to take their rebelling more seriously.

the most insightful words ever spoken by a goon
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#202 - 2012-06-14 19:33:05 UTC
silens vesica wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:

Because this is exactly what I take from them saying they won't define it. They're working on a case by case basis, and it's actually understandable.

While I don't disagree, I will note that this puts a heavy chill on a whole lot of popular Empire Space activities - It's basically creating a 'landmine' problem. If you can't at least approximately identify a 'rookie,' then any aggressive act against a rather broad class of characters risks a ban.

In short - If the minefields aren't marked, who will ever walk in the grass?


So - I agree with the others, we need at the very least a ballpark idea of what constitutes a 'Rookie.'


I agree

However, I stick by my assertion that if you can't define it you code it, and if it's that important to you you WILL code it. Zero development time for something you think is important to the health of the game is not possible. CCP already said that they have plans to improve upon the new player experience. It's only a matter of when, not if.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#203 - 2012-06-14 19:36:01 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

***Some people will intentionally try to bait you into a public response by messing with rookies in SOE systems now that you announced you might respond publicly.

This is what scares me.

We all know, without a doubt, that there are people that when told not to do something will do it because they were told not to.

Saying don't do this or we'll do this is only an invitation to some people to do exactly that.

If I had to be totally honest here, I'd say that adults are just giant children who take their fun more seriously. Which means that some people are going to take their rebelling more seriously.


This is why you don't set up a policy of "If you make us mad, we'll X" unless X is so terrible that you achieve the chilling effect you need.

Rome did that. They said "If you molest a Roman Citizen, we'll burn down your Towns." That put a chilling effect on molesting Roman Citizens.

The GMs aren't willing to burn down the town (IP Ban, whatever), so they need to remain mute on conditional rule changes.

"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
Staten Island
Diversity 101
Domain Research and Mining Inst.
#204 - 2012-06-14 19:39:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Staten Island
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.

*****

Alright, instead of arguing this any further. Here one for you guys. I am sure that most of you understand our goals, now assuming you had ZERO development time, how would YOU word a policy that achieves these goals?



The problem with CCP's wording of the rule is that it is vague and promotes meta-gaming. Anybody who has actually visited a "rookie" system can verify that these systems are havens for vet players and their alts who do all sorts of things such as mining, missioning, etc. . . . Sure the gms have said that your free to engage vet players in the rookie systems but they have also said that you do so at your own risk if a "rookie" gets in the way. Consequently, no sane person is going to engage under these rules and risk the potential ban that might result if a vet throws one of his rookie alts into the mix. Thus this rule essentially walls off portions of eve and creates de facto safe areas for all players regardless of age, which of course is directly counter to the essence of eve.

IMO, ccp should simply remove all rookies from the the server and place them in their own separate area, similar to the rookie islands that exist in many other mmos. For game rp purposes I would refer to these systems as a "simulated" eve. This would be a place where rookies could spend a couple of weeks being put through their paces, earn skills, but suffer no real loses. After all, in rl you would never be allowed to fly a plane without logging many hours in a simulator, so why in eve should you be trusted with a spacecraft without spending some time behind a virtual control panel? At the end of the rookies time in the simulator they would be kicked out into eve and certified as being ready for game and perhaps given a some isk and a small frig or destroyer. Of course I would allow players to skip the simulator, but then they do so at their own risk.
Haulie Berry
#205 - 2012-06-14 19:40:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Haulie Berry
RubyPorto wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

***Some people will intentionally try to bait you into a public response by messing with rookies in SOE systems now that you announced you might respond publicly.

This is what scares me.

We all know, without a doubt, that there are people that when told not to do something will do it because they were told not to.

Saying don't do this or we'll do this is only an invitation to some people to do exactly that.

If I had to be totally honest here, I'd say that adults are just giant children who take their fun more seriously. Which means that some people are going to take their rebelling more seriously.


This is why you don't set up a policy of "If you make us mad, we'll X" unless X is so terrible that you achieve the chilling effect you need.

Rome did that. They said "If you molest a Roman Citizen, we'll burn down your Towns." That put a chilling effect on molesting Roman Citizens.

The GMs aren't willing to burn down the town (IP Ban, whatever), so they need to remain mute on conditional rule changes.


Except it's even worse than that because, depending on one's perspective, it's like saying, "If you molest a Roman Citizen, we'll leave your town alone and burn down someone else's town."
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#206 - 2012-06-14 19:41:29 UTC
Makkal Hanaya wrote:
Ginseng Jita wrote:
People with older accounts that create an alt on an existing account would not be flagged as rookies.

I had a trial account a year and a half ago, but only turned it into a regular account 13 days ago. Despite my account being over a year old, I have less than a month of playtime.

I wouldn't be surprised if a number of new players are those who've upgraded trials they've had for a while.


You remembered your login details after a year and a half? I have a trail of failed trial accounts, but I always started fresh when I tried again (mainly because I forgot the login details, but partly because I needed the trial to decide).

"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
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#207 - 2012-06-14 19:41:43 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:

However, I stick by my assertion that if you can't define it you code it, and if it's that important to you you WILL code it. Zero development time for something you think is important to the health of the game is not possible. CCP already said that they have plans to improve upon the new player experience. It's only a matter of when, not if.

Coding for 'undefined' is a bit of a challenge. Lol

Solution (which WILL require Dev time, of course!): Take the GM's ad-hoc rules. Expand them to give a substantial safety margin. Then code them so that when you try to lock up a 'protected' toon, your targetting systems fail - wherever they are.

Maybe add a 'don't be naughty' pop-up.

Solves the problem - you get a lock, it's a vaild target: F1.
No lock: Go find someone else.

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#208 - 2012-06-14 19:42:27 UTC
Haulie Berry wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

***Some people will intentionally try to bait you into a public response by messing with rookies in SOE systems now that you announced you might respond publicly.

This is what scares me.

We all know, without a doubt, that there are people that when told not to do something will do it because they were told not to.

Saying don't do this or we'll do this is only an invitation to some people to do exactly that.

If I had to be totally honest here, I'd say that adults are just giant children who take their fun more seriously. Which means that some people are going to take their rebelling more seriously.


This is why you don't set up a policy of "If you make us mad, we'll X" unless X is so terrible that you achieve the chilling effect you need.

Rome did that. They said "If you molest a Roman Citizen, we'll burn down your Towns." That put a chilling effect on molesting Roman Citizens.

The GMs aren't willing to burn down the town (IP Ban, whatever), so they need to remain mute on conditional rule changes.


Except it's even worse than that because, depending on one's perspective, it's like saying, "If you molest a Roman Citizen, we'll leave your town alone and burn down someone else's town."


Trolling the Pax Romanum. Wonderful.

"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
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#209 - 2012-06-14 19:42:29 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:


This is why you don't set up a policy of "If you make us mad, we'll X" unless X is so terrible that you achieve the chilling effect you need.

Rome did that. They said "If you molest a Roman Citizen, we'll burn down your Towns." That put a chilling effect on molesting Roman Citizens.

The GMs aren't willing to burn down the town (IP Ban, whatever), so they need to remain mute on conditional rule changes.

Doesn't work in a game though.

Saying we'll do this if you do that only creates a situation were people will do exactly this to see if you'll do that. The only thing the GM's are doing is putting themselves in a position were they could have to show people that they stick to their guns.

They should have just said that if you keep it up we'll start making the bans harsher, not creating even more safe zone. A safe zone isn't going to hurt the people interested in making CCP do what they say, it's just going to make them giggle that they could make CCP do what they say.

It's the "I dare you" mentallity. Those people are out there, and this policy only gives them motivation.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#210 - 2012-06-14 19:44:40 UTC
silens vesica wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:

However, I stick by my assertion that if you can't define it you code it, and if it's that important to you you WILL code it. Zero development time for something you think is important to the health of the game is not possible. CCP already said that they have plans to improve upon the new player experience. It's only a matter of when, not if.

Coding for 'undefined' is a bit of a challenge. Lol

Solution (which WILL require Dev time, of course!): Take the GM's ad-hoc rules. Expand them to give a substantial safety margin. Then code them so that when you try to lock up a 'protected' toon, your targetting systems fail - wherever they are.

Maybe add a 'don't be naughty' pop-up.

Solves the problem - you get a lock, it's a vaild target: F1.
No lock: Go find someone else.


Coding it leads to abuse of the newbie protections (unless the code is only activated in the newbie system, in which case it's a lot of effort for little benefit), and GM Hormonia has indicated that she has no access to Dev time for the foreseeable future.

"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
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#211 - 2012-06-14 19:45:46 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:


This is why you don't set up a policy of "If you make us mad, we'll X" unless X is so terrible that you achieve the chilling effect you need.

Rome did that. They said "If you molest a Roman Citizen, we'll burn down your Towns." That put a chilling effect on molesting Roman Citizens.

The GMs aren't willing to burn down the town (IP Ban, whatever), so they need to remain mute on conditional rule changes.

Doesn't work in a game though.

Saying we'll do this if you do that only creates a situation were people will do exactly this to see if you'll do that. The only thing the GM's are doing is putting themselves in a position were they could have to show people that they stick to their guns.

They should have just said that if you keep it up we'll start making the bans harsher, not creating even more safe zone. A safe zone isn't going to hurt the people interested in making CCP do what they say, it's just going to make them giggle that they could make CCP do what they say.

It's the "I dare you" mentallity. Those people are out there, and this policy only gives them motivation.


Good job restating what I said.

"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
Greg Valanti
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#212 - 2012-06-14 19:45:46 UTC
Mrr Woodcock wrote:
Greg Valanti, I don't know where your at in your pirating career. What I'm trying to convey to most people that want to be real pirates, (not the weak bottom feeders) is that when done right in my opinion, there really is quite a lot of isk to be made. But very rarely does it occur in high sec, (some times it does), and I've never seen anyone get rich killing miners and newbys even with 100M isk payouts from goon.

Try infiltrating a medium size corp, earning there trust, then emptying there coffers into your pockets. Really really large isk potential there. Some of the richest players in eve got there fortunes this way.

One last example. I was working with a pirate corp, and joined an industrial low sec corp. They use to mine every Saturday morning. This particular Saturday was D-day so to speak. I was flying a cruiser guarding the mining fleet, as my pirate corp was preparing to invade the system. All my mids were fit with warp scramblers, I scrambled (2) Orcas, and (3) hulks as my friends jumped in to engage. Needless to say, we had a lot of fun, no one ejected that day. But it was a lot of fun, and the take wasn't to bad.

Killing beginners in any fashion really isn't where it's at, in my most humble opinion. Good Luck


I truly don't understand how your post is relevant to the issues I was trying to discuss. If you look at my KB activity you will see anything recent has been in lowsec or WH space, but that is besides the point.

The discussion is not about career choice, the ethics of shooting rookies, or piracy at all. Chloe, one of our new recruits, was warned by a GM, prior to joining us, for having fought in a rookie system. Chloe is barely a month old, was in a T1 frigate, and killed another player several weeks older in a T1 cruiser.

Now even rookies are getting warnings for shooting more veteran players in these systems. While the GMs will state that they can tell who is and is not a new player rather than a new character, I am willing to bet that this is not checked or followed up on 98% of the time.

There is no easy answer to the problems being caused by this policy. It is going to require a lot of work on the NPE team's end.
Makkal Hanaya
Revenent Defence Corperation
#213 - 2012-06-14 19:50:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Makkal Hanaya
silens vesica wrote:

While I don't disagree, I will note that this puts a heavy chill on a whole lot of popular Empire Space activities - It's basically creating a 'landmine' problem. If you can't at least approximately identify a 'rookie,' then any aggressive act against a rather broad class of characters risks a ban.


I don't think it's a landmine problem.

I did my trial account after Incarna came out and during my trial I was contacted by not one, but four GMs who wanted to make sure I was understanding the game and not being griefed. The rookie help channel was full of people having difficulties - someone had flipped their can, or they got shot at or CONCORD'd and didn't understand how this had happened, or someone was in their mission stealing their Dagon, what to do?!

For 90% of the player base, this is background noise, but the GMs are dealing with this on a daily basis.

I think the problem is that for some members of the forum, this just popped up on their radar, while the GMs have probably dealt with 100+ instances of people 'messing with rookies' and have come to the sort of informal standard that groups create.

If someone's been operating in Empire space and never gotten in trouble for 'messing with rookies,' the chance that they'll suddenly get banned is rather low.

Are there a few outliners? Yes, but that's true of all rule enforcement. And it doesn't help that when people come on the forum to complain about a GM's actions, they tend to give a very skewed accounting of what happened.

Render unto Khanid the things which are Khanid's; and unto God the things that are God's.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#214 - 2012-06-14 19:50:23 UTC
silens vesica wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:

However, I stick by my assertion that if you can't define it you code it, and if it's that important to you you WILL code it. Zero development time for something you think is important to the health of the game is not possible. CCP already said that they have plans to improve upon the new player experience. It's only a matter of when, not if.

Coding for 'undefined' is a bit of a challenge. Lol

Solution (which WILL require Dev time, of course!): Take the GM's ad-hoc rules. Expand them to give a substantial safety margin. Then code them so that when you try to lock up a 'protected' toon, your targetting systems fail - wherever they are.

Maybe add a 'don't be naughty' pop-up.

Solves the problem - you get a lock, it's a vaild target: F1.
No lock: Go find someone else.


My idea is to give them the immunity that CCP wants them to have so that they can learn the game, and that actually takes into account the actions have repercussion philosophy of the game.

A timer that counts down and is negated when specffic actions are taken. Enter a system below a specific threshold, put an amount of market value items in your hold, take an agressive action against another player, or anything else that would be deemed as a non rookie action. Of course all these things should first have a warning so the palyer knows it will happen if they proceed.

The stated rule is fine, but once they start actually doing more refining of the new player experience you've got to take it out of the players hands. Threats don't work.
GM Homonoia
Game Master Retirement Home
#215 - 2012-06-14 19:52:20 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:

b) continue short list of Exceptions, like initiating a suicide gank, or whatever. Take these from the publicly viewable information used in your in house Newbie definition


That right there is the problem. We can probably write a list the size of a dictionary. So we will stick to case by case basis. The only issue left is the wording of the evelopedia page. I will see if I can raise the discussion on that internally, but a new wording may take a while.

Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#216 - 2012-06-14 19:52:33 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:


This is why you don't set up a policy of "If you make us mad, we'll X" unless X is so terrible that you achieve the chilling effect you need.

Rome did that. They said "If you molest a Roman Citizen, we'll burn down your Towns." That put a chilling effect on molesting Roman Citizens.

The GMs aren't willing to burn down the town (IP Ban, whatever), so they need to remain mute on conditional rule changes.

Doesn't work in a game though.

Saying we'll do this if you do that only creates a situation were people will do exactly this to see if you'll do that. The only thing the GM's are doing is putting themselves in a position were they could have to show people that they stick to their guns.

They should have just said that if you keep it up we'll start making the bans harsher, not creating even more safe zone. A safe zone isn't going to hurt the people interested in making CCP do what they say, it's just going to make them giggle that they could make CCP do what they say.

It's the "I dare you" mentallity. Those people are out there, and this policy only gives them motivation.


Good job restating what I said.

I apologize, I read it wrong.
Half my brain and face are in agony today. I'm struggling just to make sense of my keyboard, let alone reading comprehension.
Makkal Hanaya
Revenent Defence Corperation
#217 - 2012-06-14 19:55:47 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:

You remembered your login details after a year and a half? I have a trail of failed trial accounts, but I always started fresh when I tried again (mainly because I forgot the login details, but partly because I needed the trial to decide).

I remembered the log-in name and was able to reset the password.

You can't delete accounts (that I know of) and having a bunch of trials forever floating in the aether would bother me to no end. Besides, I liked my trial and knew I wanted a long-term sub; it just took me a while until I had the time and right mindset for really getting into the game.

Render unto Khanid the things which are Khanid's; and unto God the things that are God's.
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#218 - 2012-06-14 19:56:52 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
silens vesica wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:

However, I stick by my assertion that if you can't define it you code it, and if it's that important to you you WILL code it. Zero development time for something you think is important to the health of the game is not possible. CCP already said that they have plans to improve upon the new player experience. It's only a matter of when, not if.

Coding for 'undefined' is a bit of a challenge. Lol

Solution (which WILL require Dev time, of course!): Take the GM's ad-hoc rules. Expand them to give a substantial safety margin. Then code them so that when you try to lock up a 'protected' toon, your targetting systems fail - wherever they are.

Maybe add a 'don't be naughty' pop-up.

Solves the problem - you get a lock, it's a vaild target: F1.
No lock: Go find someone else.


Coding it leads to abuse of the newbie protections (unless the code is only activated in the newbie system, in which case it's a lot of effort for little benefit), and GM Hormonia has indicated that she has no access to Dev time for the foreseeable future.

*shrug*
It's not conceptually difficult to set flags for 'system,' 'age of toon,' 'number of SP,' 'age of account,' and any other criteria which the GMs feel appropriate. Not seeing the code, I dunno about the actual difficulty, but I'm fairly certain it's a damnsight easier than coding for, say, CrimeWatch.

And yes, I know she's got no dev time for this little project - which is kinda what makes it inadvasable to play with with this subject all: If you're not willing to discuss the details of the criteria, then don't bring it up!

The "we've got guidelines, no you can't know 'em, but we'll hammer you if you break 'em" approach constitutes trolling, IMO.

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc
Trappist Monk
Doomheim
#219 - 2012-06-14 20:01:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Trappist Monk
GM Homonoia wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

b) continue short list of Exceptions, like initiating a suicide gank, or whatever. Take these from the publicly viewable information used in your in house Newbie definition


That right there is the problem. We can probably write a list the size of a dictionary. So we will stick to case by case basis. The only issue left is the wording of the evelopedia page. I will see if I can raise the discussion on that internally, but a new wording may take a while.

what happened to considering my idea, since your long list (with the capitalized PLAYER and CHARACTER) seem to be responding to my argument.

Quote:
How about:

a straight rule for the vets, using an offical announcement:
* No PvP with, stealing from, can baiting, griefing, spamming, or scamming of new characters who are 14 days or less old in rookie systems.

for the "real" rookies, using a last page after character creation but before entering game (or, if that needs development time, using one of those warning message boxes for system events):
* EVE is based on non-consensual PvP. You will have limited protection from combat and piracy inside your starting system for 14 days. If you leave the starting system or your 14 days expire, you are a valid target and a willing participant.

No need for exceptions. You leave the system, you're a target. Feel free to change the # of days, but thats the same as a trial period.
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#220 - 2012-06-14 20:03:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Cutter Isaacson
Well, this got out of hand pretty quickly.

I am forced to wonder why this has become such a massive issue, most of the people in this thread screaming "We need clarification about what a Rookie is" can't really be all that bothered about it, if they were there would have been dozens of threads posted every week on here.

Now all of a sudden these "concerned citizens" pop out of the woodwork like flies to poop, running around and declaring how unsatisfactory the whole mess is and how they demand this that and the other. Where have most of you been for the entire time this was such a gigantic problem eh? Oh that's right, either off popping rookies yourselves, or just not actually giving a damn until the time comes when you can make yourselves out to be the epitome of virtue, and wave your little "Look at me, I'm standing up for the little guy" banners.

99% of you didn't give a damn about this issue before, why start now, just to make yourselves look like big girls and boys on the internet? The only thing that seems to have really changed is that CCP finally got tired of losing subs to ignorant little mentally challenged miscreants and had to try and put a stop to it.

Pathetic.

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.