EVE General Discussion

Hey Tippia.

What is your personal definition of rookie? Can you apply that definition fairly and equally to all situations?

Just curious what someone with better debating skills than I can come up with.

14 days or less, no player corps in history, no pvp history, no older characters on the account

pretty simple really

I would say that it can't be defined other than by exposing data that shouldn't be exposed to other users (and even then, it's highly questionable), so it's a bad idea to create a rule that relies on such a definition.

Instead, you create a blanket rule that protects an unquestionably objective and clear subsection of space and its inhabitants — regardless of status — and then improve the education of all parties about the existence and extent of this protection. This make the definition and its applicability irrelevant.

So what makes your common-sense definition better than the other common-sense definitions, and how can you be so sure they'll use yours?

Bad case of 'post overload' happening in this thread today.

OK, since were so focused on making suggestions, and all doing our best to help the GM come to a conclusion as to how this should be handled, here is my two bits.

1) I think 6 months of safety is completely reasonable. Give them a chance to learn
The Game. But that’s all they get is 6 months. So if they open an account, play for 2 Hours, but do not return for say 6 months and one day. They clearly should loose this granted safety no matter what. They get 6 months period. Get set go.

2) There should be a list of Bozo No No’s. For example, if they ever set foot in
Anything less than high sec, join any player based corp, haul anything of value
Greater than say 5m isk. (these are just examples) there newb protection ends
Instantly. What I think makes sense are basic no no’s. I’m certain CCP could
Derive this easy enough and adjust accordingly.

Something like this makes a certain sense to me. But honestly I like it just fine the way it is. I actually like the grayness of it, as with virtually all other aspects of life, and gaming. In my opinion the less certain you can make it the better, as many of the pun dents eluded too, it’s give’s CCP the biggest hammer. In my opinion players that prey on new ones need lots of uncertainty to kinda make them think. Problem is having to think, exercise discretion, and related stuff, doesn’t seem to be in style with many of this crowd. I’m going to go out on a limb here, and predict. Many, Many more in this game, please refer to your survey, have no problem what so ever with the simple way the GM stated it. I don’t.

CCP please take note of all the debate here, and the blatant refusal to accept a potato, as a potato. There whole argument is simple. Stake them out a few systems. That way when they leave them, we can have at em just as soon as possible. They actually desperately need those defenseless players to kill, harass, or what ever.

The bottom feeders are always going to be there, trust me. No matter what you do, you probably won’t be able to stop all of it. 90% is pretty good though.

My purpose is simple. I want the new guys to flourish, get interested, grow into solid veteran players. Move on to low, and null sec.s. Where many of us old school PVP’er are, and will welcome them to our world in a grand fashion.

They’re never going to stop trying to create uncertainty in this, or saying or doing anything to de-rail this. It just isn’t going to happen. I highly encourage the use of a big stick mentality for CCP regarding this. The will inevitably understand that, although it may take a bit.

The whole world works on the implications of certain events. Don’t jump in front of a speeding car, no law for that, but we all understand the implications.

Final words to GM

Lincoln Armm nicely said

I disagree that it can't be defined.

At the very least, a core definition should be do-able, and fringe cases can go to the ever-so-popular 'case-by-case' consideration. Trappist Monk's suggestion comes close, but might not be perfect - I might amend it a little bit, perhaps "Youndger than 21 days in any combination of trial and paid accounts, etc. etc. etc." Other than that, I can work with his definition - It's sensible, easily understood, and doesn't provide shelter for excessive periods of time.

So, if I understand correctly, this would be the creation of a No-PvP zone is that protects all players when they are in it. Which is not unlike being docked in station.

Would this work to protect 'people'? Yup. Sure would.

It would create much more than just safety though, and I refuse to even talk about considering the multi-day length of this debate. lol

You are. You have to, because the GMs will not fully provide them for you. This means you always risk running by a different rule set than the GMs are (in fact, that's the entire intent of them not providing the rules in full).

I didn't. I just questioned its conclusions.

…which is pretty much what we have had since time immemorial. The difference would be roughly zero.

Such as?

Right, you cherry picked your argument and we continued on without you. And I'm not making any rules, I'm just using common sense while I feel my way through the gray. But as noted by myself and others, common sense varies quite notably. Some people have it, some don't, and some jsut enjoy being purposefully obtuse.



Pass the lube please.

Create a place where people, when war decced, can run when things get tough and still fly their shiny ships. A place where people can mine, belt rat, run missions, in 100% safety. Unless this No-PvP zone does not have belts, missions, or anomalies and the only thing a person can do is the tutorial missions, one time. Perhaps I am missing something though.