These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ris Dnalor
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#501 - 2012-06-16 05:39:28 UTC
Mrr Woodcock wrote:
I think I agree with your position there. Have a nice night Love Boat Captain. Twisted


Captain Merrill Stubing P

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961

EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody

  • Qolde
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#502 - 2012-06-16 05:45:08 UTC
Don't most browsers have a built in spellcheck function these days?
Rhedea
Gorthaur Legion
Imperium Mordor
#503 - 2012-06-16 10:08:40 UTC
Cistuvaert ahh home sweet home such a dangerous place to be I left quickly. No hand holding back then. Seat of the pants learning.

Noobs are those still on the rookie channel, and should have icon to show it. Like a round icon ( ) instead of the normal [ ]
Like leaner plates (L) Lol
Anyway as long as they stay in High Sec they should be kinda safe. A sec hit of -10 for shooting a ( ) in High Sec. A Ban for shooting in a starting system. No if and or buts.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#504 - 2012-06-16 11:06:37 UTC
THE L0CK wrote:
It was part of my discussion with others while you continued on about the hauler thing, remember how I said we moved on?
So you went off-topic, you mean. Well, too bad. I stayed on topic and you didn't want to discuss it. Everything you mentioned was related to things in other threads, not this one. In this one, we're discussing a clarification of the rookie systems rule (see OP, see thread title, see GM responses) and the problems with their current policy.

Quote:
Circling around yet again
…because you never answered the questions. Well, technically, that's not circling back — it's you stalling.

Mara Rinn wrote:
Here are a few ideas on what classifies as a rookie, using information we can determine by just looking at the character and the ship that they fly, without having to know account details or play history. Define a rookie as any character you encounter who satisfies 3 of the following conditions:
The problem with that list is that it's easily gameable to provide protection to non-rookies.

Mrr Woodcock wrote:
Ruby, You want to corral the new players in a specific area,

This implies to me that the second they get bored and venture out of that system there fair game so to speak. I just disagree with that basically, probably not completely though.
…except, of course, that all of that is already the case, and the problem is that as they try to expand that rule, the rule becomes so vague as to be utterly useless both as a control mechanism and as an enforcement tool. Of the two options: newbies get slightly worse protection outside of the starter systems, and everyone has to work around a rule that no-one has any clue how it works and which opens up huge exploits, the former is far better for everyone involved (yes, even the rookies, since they now have a clear rule to learn and know where their protection ends so they can act accordingly).
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#505 - 2012-06-16 11:20:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Cutter Isaacson
Wow, 26 pages and still the only thing that's clear is how much you lot like to wave your e-peens around. So after all this time, wasted words and pointless too and fro, have you lot decided how CCP should operate their own business yet? Or have you moved on to solving famine, pestilence and the ever present threat of terrorism?

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#506 - 2012-06-16 13:03:25 UTC
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Wow, 26 pages and still the only thing that's clear is how much you lot like to wave your e-peens around. So after all this time, wasted words and pointless too and fro, have you lot decided how CCP should operate their own business yet? Or have you moved on to solving famine, pestilence and the ever present threat of terrorism?


I like the cut of your jib, Cutter.

If I were to make a new forum warrior, it would be you.

Mr Epeen Cool
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#507 - 2012-06-16 13:06:20 UTC
Grinder2210 wrote:

Well i personaly dont belave the guy flying a faction fit bc or bs a few weeks or even days into the game should be concidered a rookie ...


Great. Define rookie to satisfactorily exclude those people without excluding any rookies worth protecting.

(Due to Plex, I don't think isk value of the ship's a really great consideration, but it's one you could use)

"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
#508 - 2012-06-16 13:09:07 UTC
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Wow, 26 pages and still the only thing that's clear is how much you lot like to wave your e-peens around. So after all this time, wasted words and pointless too and fro, have you lot decided how CCP should operate their own business yet? Or have you moved on to solving famine, pestilence and the ever present threat of terrorism?


CCP asked.

GMOs, Build Highways, and ignore it since it's doesn't cause a significant number of deaths.

"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
#509 - 2012-06-16 13:10:50 UTC
Rhedea wrote:
Cistuvaert ahh home sweet home such a dangerous place to be I left quickly. No hand holding back then. Seat of the pants learning.

Noobs are those still on the rookie channel, and should have icon to show it. Like a round icon ( ) instead of the normal [ ]
Like leaner plates (L) Lol
Anyway as long as they stay in High Sec they should be kinda safe. A sec hit of -10 for shooting a ( ) in High Sec. A Ban for shooting in a starting system. No if and or buts.


GM Hormonia has stated that no Dev time can be spent on the solution.

Why should anyone outside the rookie systems be protected? All that delaying danger does is ensure that their first loss is bigger and harder to recover from.

"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
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#510 - 2012-06-16 13:21:05 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Wow, 26 pages and still the only thing that's clear is how much you lot like to wave your e-peens around. So after all this time, wasted words and pointless too and fro, have you lot decided how CCP should operate their own business yet? Or have you moved on to solving famine, pestilence and the ever present threat of terrorism?


CCP asked.

GMOs, Build Highways, and ignore it since it's doesn't cause a significant number of deaths.



Fair answers for the other questions, but what about the main one? I have to be honest, all I have seen come out of this thread is a whole bunch of "You define a Rookie"...."No, YOU define a Rookie!!"....."No YOU!!!!!!!!!". Followed by a lot of justification, empty words, and general stupidity.

In summation, this thread is nothing more than a bunch of people shouting the same question at each other repeatedly while not listening to each other. Its like watching a room full of deaf people play Chinese whispers. Do any of you realise just how ridiculous you all look? (my apologies to any deaf players this analogy may have offended)

This is why asking the player base for input on this sort of subject is a waste of time, none of you has the objectivity required to make any truly useful or helpful contribution without allowing personal bias, or deep seated urge to wave your e-peens around, to interfere.

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#511 - 2012-06-16 13:26:16 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Wow, 26 pages and still the only thing that's clear is how much you lot like to wave your e-peens around. So after all this time, wasted words and pointless too and fro, have you lot decided how CCP should operate their own business yet? Or have you moved on to solving famine, pestilence and the ever present threat of terrorism?


I like the cut of your jib, Cutter.

If I were to make a new forum warrior, it would be you.

Mr Epeen Cool



D'awww, shucks. Thanks Mr Epeen Sir Big smile

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#512 - 2012-06-16 13:33:22 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Wow, 26 pages and still the only thing that's clear is how much you lot like to wave your e-peens around. So after all this time, wasted words and pointless too and fro, have you lot decided how CCP should operate their own business yet? Or have you moved on to solving famine, pestilence and the ever present threat of terrorism?


CCP asked.

GMOs, Build Highways, and ignore it since it's doesn't cause a significant number of deaths.



Fair answers for the other questions, but what about the main one? I have to be honest, all I have seen come out of this thread is a whole bunch of "You define a Rookie"...."No, YOU define a Rookie!!"....."No YOU!!!!!!!!!". Followed by a lot of justification, empty words, and general stupidity.

In summation, this thread is nothing more than a bunch of people shouting the same question at each other repeatedly while not listening to each other. Its like watching a room full of deaf people play Chinese whispers. Do any of you realise just how ridiculous you all look? (my apologies to any deaf players this analogy may have offended)

This is why asking the player base for input on this sort of subject is a waste of time, none of you has the objectivity required to make any truly useful or helpful contribution without allowing personal bias, or deep seated urge to wave your e-peens around, to interfere.


I've offered my suggestion of how to protect rookies several times. It does not require me to make any definition of "rookie" to be effective.

Here's my suggestion: All forms of "messing with" would be illegal (as in makey GMs mad at you) in Rookie systems. Full Stop. Officer Fit Hulk? You'll be warned/banned for shooting it. 2 days old with a hold full of Plex? It'll make the GMs mad if you shoot it.

It is a perfectly sensitive (but not very specific) rule to protect rookies. It is clear, concise, easy to enforce and understand (lose a ship to player action - it's petitionable), and covers everyone we want covered. And it doesn't require us to define what a "rookie" is.

It absolutely causes other problems, including the inevitable total stripping of rookie system belts on an hourly basis, but those can be fixed once Dev time does become available to remove the belts and instance those mining missions that aren't already instanced.


Those who want a narrower protected class are the ones who have invited the problem of defining something that's hard to define satisfactorily.

"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
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#513 - 2012-06-16 13:49:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Cutter Isaacson
RubyPorto wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Wow, 26 pages and still the only thing that's clear is how much you lot like to wave your e-peens around. So after all this time, wasted words and pointless too and fro, have you lot decided how CCP should operate their own business yet? Or have you moved on to solving famine, pestilence and the ever present threat of terrorism?


CCP asked.

GMOs, Build Highways, and ignore it since it's doesn't cause a significant number of deaths.



Fair answers for the other questions, but what about the main one? I have to be honest, all I have seen come out of this thread is a whole bunch of "You define a Rookie"...."No, YOU define a Rookie!!"....."No YOU!!!!!!!!!". Followed by a lot of justification, empty words, and general stupidity.

In summation, this thread is nothing more than a bunch of people shouting the same question at each other repeatedly while not listening to each other. Its like watching a room full of deaf people play Chinese whispers. Do any of you realise just how ridiculous you all look? (my apologies to any deaf players this analogy may have offended)

This is why asking the player base for input on this sort of subject is a waste of time, none of you has the objectivity required to make any truly useful or helpful contribution without allowing personal bias, or deep seated urge to wave your e-peens around, to interfere.


I've offered my suggestion of how to protect rookies several times. It does not require me to make any definition of "rookie" to be effective.

Here's my suggestion: All forms of "messing with" would be illegal (as in makey GMs mad at you) in Rookie systems. Full Stop. Officer Fit Hulk? You'll be warned/banned for shooting it. 2 days old with a hold full of Plex? It'll make the GMs mad if you shoot it.

It is a perfectly sensitive (but not very specific) rule to protect rookies. It is clear, concise, easy to enforce and understand (lose a ship to player action - it's petitionable), and covers everyone we want covered. And it doesn't require us to define what a "rookie" is.


Those who want a narrower protected class are the ones who have invited the problem of defining something that's hard to define satisfactorily.



And this is why people like Tippia argue with you. First things first though. Anyone who is not a Rookie really has no reason to be in a Rookie system, someone in a Hulk is NOT a rookie, that is just common sense, so your first statement is pointless (as I said earlier). Also as has been pointed out, there are areas that rookies are required to go in to that are NOT rookie systems for their SOE missions.

Here is how I see it. CCP can internally define a Rookie, they have said as much, so we leave them to do what they feel is right in rookie systems, since no one else really has any need to be there. The next step is any Rookie engaged in an SOE mission arc should be made unscannable, their missions should be unprobable and any loot cans should be locked to them and them alone. That would solve the issue of people stealing their stuff, it would also mean that CCP does not have to enforce rookie system rules on what are currently non-rookie ones.

Next up, if Rookies who are on their SOE arcs get attacked without provocation whilst going to non-rookie systems specifically for those missions, there should be a flag raised at CCP for them to look at and take action on. If the rookie has been found to be attacking other people without being can baited etc, then let the chips fall where they may. If however they were attacked by another player or can baited/flipped, then that player gets smacked with a ban/warning.

Debating this any further amongst ourselves is an exercise in futility. I see people claiming that common sense cannot be applied, along with utterly inane scenarios such as the null sec hauler rookie with a cargohold full of officer goodies. Are they rookies, no, they are not. You don't find unsupported, wet behind the ears rookies hauling stuff like that, because no corp or alliance in their right mind would allow it.

Common sense is perfectly applicable, you only need to try.

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#514 - 2012-06-16 13:58:17 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Wow, 26 pages and still the only thing that's clear is how much you lot like to wave your e-peens around. So after all this time, wasted words and pointless too and fro, have you lot decided how CCP should operate their own business yet? Or have you moved on to solving famine, pestilence and the ever present threat of terrorism?


CCP asked.

GMOs, Build Highways, and ignore it since it's doesn't cause a significant number of deaths.



Fair answers for the other questions, but what about the main one? I have to be honest, all I have seen come out of this thread is a whole bunch of "You define a Rookie"...."No, YOU define a Rookie!!"....."No YOU!!!!!!!!!". Followed by a lot of justification, empty words, and general stupidity.

In summation, this thread is nothing more than a bunch of people shouting the same question at each other repeatedly while not listening to each other. Its like watching a room full of deaf people play Chinese whispers. Do any of you realise just how ridiculous you all look? (my apologies to any deaf players this analogy may have offended)

This is why asking the player base for input on this sort of subject is a waste of time, none of you has the objectivity required to make any truly useful or helpful contribution without allowing personal bias, or deep seated urge to wave your e-peens around, to interfere.


I've offered my suggestion of how to protect rookies several times. It does not require me to make any definition of "rookie" to be effective.

Here's my suggestion: All forms of "messing with" would be illegal (as in makey GMs mad at you) in Rookie systems. Full Stop. Officer Fit Hulk? You'll be warned/banned for shooting it. 2 days old with a hold full of Plex? It'll make the GMs mad if you shoot it.

It is a perfectly sensitive (but not very specific) rule to protect rookies. It is clear, concise, easy to enforce and understand (lose a ship to player action - it's petitionable), and covers everyone we want covered. And it doesn't require us to define what a "rookie" is.


Those who want a narrower protected class are the ones who have invited the problem of defining something that's hard to define satisfactorily.



And this is why people like Tippia argue with you. First things first though. Anyone who is not a Rookie really has no reason to be in a Rookie system, someone in a Hulk is NOT a rookie, that is just common sense, so your first statement is pointless (as I said earlier). Also as has been pointed out, there are areas that rookies are required to go in to that are NOT rookie systems for their SOE missions.

Here is how I see it. CCP can internally define a Rookie, they have said as much, so we leave them to do what they feel is right in rookie systems, since no one else really has any need to be there. The next step is any Rookie engaged in an SOE mission arc should be made unscannable, their missions should be unprobable and any loot cans should be locked to them and them alone. That would solve the issue of people stealing their stuff, it would also mean that CCP does not have to enforce rookie system rules on what are currently non-rookie ones.

Next up, if Rookies who are on their SOE arcs get attacked without provocation whilst going to non-rookie systems specifically for those missions, there should be a flag raised at CCP for them to look at and take action on. If the rookie has been found to be attacking other people without being can baited etc, then let the chips fall where they may. If however they were attacked by another player or can baited/flipped, then that player gets smacked with a ban/warning.

Debating this any further amongst ourselves is an exercise in futility. I see people claiming that common sense cannot be applied, along with utterly inane scenarios such as the null sec hauler rookie with a cargohold full of officer goodies. Are they rookies, no, they are not. You don't find unsupported, wet behind the ears rookies hauling stuff like that, because no corp or alliance in their right mind would allow it.

Common sense is perfectly applicable, you only need to try.


1) My suggestion is very similar to the one Tippia has suggested, thus I suspect you haven't read the thread.

2) You have now suggested a rule that requires a definition of "rookie" to be useful, OR you have suggested a rule that will cause confusion over legal targets, for which you must explain why that confusion is a good thing.

If you're saying that some class of people should not be protected in rookie systems, you either need to define the protected class or define the non-protected class. If you want to prevent the protected class from being "messed with" in the first place, that definition needs to be something other players can figure out.

"Common Sense" is not "Common" in any sense of the word.

"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
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#515 - 2012-06-16 14:33:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Cutter Isaacson
RubyPorto wrote:


1) My suggestion is very similar to the one Tippia has suggested, thus I suspect you haven't read the thread.

2) You have now suggested a rule that requires a definition of "rookie" to be useful, OR you have suggested a rule that will cause confusion over legal targets, for which you must explain why that confusion is a good thing.

If you're saying that some class of people should not be protected in rookie systems, you either need to define the protected class or define the non-protected class. If you want to prevent the protected class from being "messed with" in the first place, that definition needs to be something other players can figure out.

"Common Sense" is not "Common" in any sense of the word.


Ok, I'll let number one slide, I have been trying to keep up with the thread, but after so many pointless posts, they all started to blend in to each other and I began to slip in to a coma.

As for number 2, I am suggesting no such thing. I stated a fact, that being that CCP already has internal definitions of what a Rookie is. And to make it easier, why not say that Rookie systems are only accessible to characters under 30 days old? The same time they get thrown out of Rookie help chat. Within 30 days they should have been able to complete the tutorial missions with ease, and then simply deny access to those systems to anyone who is NOT still a rookie under CCP's internal definitions.

When it comes to my other suggestions, they are still perfectly valid and require not much more than we have already. A little common sense, modifications to SOE missions and my other suggestion regarding Rookie aggression. It would be much simpler for CCP to just observe the behaviour of one group, than to track everyone else.

And you can keep throwing that "common sense is not common" phrase around as much as you like, it serves no purpose other than to put the onus on CCP to provide something that they cannot provide, rather than expecting players to show a little intelligence.

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#516 - 2012-06-16 14:57:00 UTC
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:


1) My suggestion is very similar to the one Tippia has suggested, thus I suspect you haven't read the thread.

2) You have now suggested a rule that requires a definition of "rookie" to be useful, OR you have suggested a rule that will cause confusion over legal targets, for which you must explain why that confusion is a good thing.

If you're saying that some class of people should not be protected in rookie systems, you either need to define the protected class or define the non-protected class. If you want to prevent the protected class from being "messed with" in the first place, that definition needs to be something other players can figure out.

"Common Sense" is not "Common" in any sense of the word.


Ok, I'll let number one slide, I have been trying to keep up with the thread, but after so many pointless posts, they all started to blend in to each other and I began to slip in to a coma.

As for number 2, I am suggesting no such thing. I stated a fact, that being that CCP already has internal definitions of what a Rookie is. And to make it easier, why not say that Rookie systems are only accessible to characters under 30 days old? The same time they get thrown out of Rookie help chat. Within 30 days they should have been able to complete the tutorial missions with ease, and then simply deny access to those systems to anyone who is NOT still a rookie under CCP's internal definitions.

When it comes to my other suggestions, they are still perfectly valid and require not much more than we have already. A little common sense, modifications to SOE missions and my other suggestion regarding Rookie aggression. It would be much simpler for CCP to just observe the behaviour of one group, than to track everyone else.

And you can keep throwing that "common sense is not common" phrase around as much as you like, it serves no purpose other than to put the onus on CCP to provide something that they cannot provide, rather than expecting players to show a little intelligence.


Simply banishing everyone older than 30d will cause some significant problems, especially with regards to the market seeding of rookie systems. But it would be reasonably effective in protecting rookies. I don't like the precedent of denying gate access to a class of players, especially since there are valid reasons to go back and complete career agent missions later in a character's life. Finally, banishing people runs into the problem that GM Hormonia mentioned that there is no Dev time available to do that.

The SOE mission suggestions aren't yet on point, since we're still discussing protecting rookies in their rookie systems. However, there is currently no rule against agression in any non-rookie system, and I think the best course of action would be a policy of resetting SOE missions interrupted by can flippers without punishing the flippers and without reimbursing ship loss. This reset should be accompanied by a short copypasta explaining the basics of agression mechanics. The reason for this suggestion is that I think newbies should not be prevented from completing the SOE, but at the same time, losing ones ship, especially early on when it's relatively easy to replace, is a good opportunity to learn.

The word "Common" has several meanings. The phrase "Common Sense" is not Common, in this case means that everyone has differing backgrounds and thus "Common Sense" does not mean the same thing to everyone. Stated without the play on words, it means "There is no shared definition of that wisdom which derives from shared experience, because everyone's experience is different."

Without a well specified definition of "rookie" as a class, any rule that relies on the class "rookie" runs straight into Sorities Paradox, aka the Heap Paradox, which is all about how "Common Sense" definitions cause innumerable problems.

"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
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#517 - 2012-06-16 15:09:31 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:


1) My suggestion is very similar to the one Tippia has suggested, thus I suspect you haven't read the thread.

2) You have now suggested a rule that requires a definition of "rookie" to be useful, OR you have suggested a rule that will cause confusion over legal targets, for which you must explain why that confusion is a good thing.

If you're saying that some class of people should not be protected in rookie systems, you either need to define the protected class or define the non-protected class. If you want to prevent the protected class from being "messed with" in the first place, that definition needs to be something other players can figure out.

"Common Sense" is not "Common" in any sense of the word.


Ok, I'll let number one slide, I have been trying to keep up with the thread, but after so many pointless posts, they all started to blend in to each other and I began to slip in to a coma.

As for number 2, I am suggesting no such thing. I stated a fact, that being that CCP already has internal definitions of what a Rookie is. And to make it easier, why not say that Rookie systems are only accessible to characters under 30 days old? The same time they get thrown out of Rookie help chat. Within 30 days they should have been able to complete the tutorial missions with ease, and then simply deny access to those systems to anyone who is NOT still a rookie under CCP's internal definitions.

When it comes to my other suggestions, they are still perfectly valid and require not much more than we have already. A little common sense, modifications to SOE missions and my other suggestion regarding Rookie aggression. It would be much simpler for CCP to just observe the behaviour of one group, than to track everyone else.

And you can keep throwing that "common sense is not common" phrase around as much as you like, it serves no purpose other than to put the onus on CCP to provide something that they cannot provide, rather than expecting players to show a little intelligence.


Simply banishing everyone older than 30d will cause some significant problems, especially with regards to the market seeding of rookie systems. But it would be reasonably effective in protecting rookies. I don't like the precedent of denying gate access to a class of players, especially since there are valid reasons to go back and complete career agent missions later in a character's life. Finally, banishing people runs into the problem that GM Hormonia mentioned that there is no Dev time available to do that.

The SOE mission suggestions aren't yet on point, since we're still discussing protecting rookies in their rookie systems. However, there is currently no rule against agression in any non-rookie system, and I think the best course of action would be a policy of resetting SOE missions interrupted by can flippers without punishing the flippers and without reimbursing ship loss. This reset should be accompanied by a short copypasta explaining the basics of agression mechanics. The reason for this suggestion is that I think newbies should not be prevented from completing the SOE, but at the same time, losing ones ship, especially early on when it's relatively easy to replace, is a good opportunity to learn.

The word "Common" has several meanings. The phrase "Common Sense" is not Common, in this case means that everyone has differing backgrounds and thus "Common Sense" does not mean the same thing to everyone. Stated without the play on words, it means "There is no shared definition of that wisdom which derives from shared experience, because everyone's experience is different."

Without a well specified definition of "rookie" as a class, any rule that relies on the class "rookie" runs straight into Sorities Paradox, aka the Heap Paradox, which is all about how "Common Sense" definitions cause innumerable problems.



To your first point regarding rookie missions, I honestly see no reason for an older player to go back to do them, and thus no reason to not ban them from those systems. I do however agree that it would require at least some Dev time, but then as others have pointed out if this is such a huge issue then undoubtedly CCP will find time to do it.

To your next point regarding SOE missions, I think that sounds reasonable if we are to assume that CCP really cannot find any spare Dev time to make the alterations I mentioned. Though if you consider the amount of time and money they would need to expend over the lifetime of the game in order to maintain such an inefficient system, then perhaps they would be more inclined to spend money and time now to save themselves years of constant work.

It is merely a case of cost effectiveness, something we know CCP already takes in to consideration when looking at game balancing etc. The combined effect of these changes would remove an awful lot of cases of rookies being "messed with", leaving a much lighter case load for Dev's or GM's to deal with where things fall in to the grey areas.

And finally, common sense, shall we just agree to use the term "intelligence" instead? Since common sense is clearly not the right way to put it.

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#518 - 2012-06-16 15:23:34 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Cutter Isaacson wrote:

To your first point regarding rookie missions, I honestly see no reason for an older player to go back to do them, and thus no reason to not ban them from those systems. I do however agree that it would require at least some Dev time, but then as others have pointed out if this is such a huge issue then undoubtedly CCP will find time to do it.

To your next point regarding SOE missions, I think that sounds reasonable if we are to assume that CCP really cannot find any spare Dev time to make the alterations I mentioned. Though if you consider the amount of time and money they would need to expend over the lifetime of the game in order to maintain such an inefficient system, then perhaps they would be more inclined to spend money and time now to save themselves years of constant work.

It is merely a case of cost effectiveness, something we know CCP already takes in to consideration when looking at game balancing etc. The combined effect of these changes would remove an awful lot of cases of rookies being "messed with", leaving a much lighter case load for Dev's or GM's to deal with where things fall in to the grey areas.

And finally, common sense, shall we just agree to use the term "intelligence" instead? Since common sense is clearly not the right way to put it.


1) Standings repair, not everyone does them all at once, and some rookies have to be told to do them after banging their head into the wall for a while.

2) Locking the loot cans, making them unprobeable, etc. steals a possible learning experience from the rookie, ensuring that when they do get can flipped, they are likely to have a greater loss while expecting it less. The SOE arc is usually completed by a rookie soon after at least one (and likely more) ship losses, so another loss shouldn't be too shocking. As for the cost of resetting missions, that depends on how often it happens; I've run the arc a number of times (for standings), and I never had any trouble.

"Intelligence" is just as bad. Sorities Paradox* applies any time you try to define a class with a simple natural language definition.

*Stanford's Philosophy Department, since you dislike Wikipedia

EDIT: Whoops, you're not the one who dislikes wikipedia, sorry. Still, citing Stanford's good enough as citing anyone.

"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
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#519 - 2012-06-16 15:40:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Corina Jarr
Rhedea wrote:
Noobs are those still on the rookie channel, and should have icon to show it. Like a round icon ( ) instead of the normal [ ]
Like leaner plates (L) Lol
Anyway as long as they stay in High Sec they should be kinda safe. A sec hit of -10 for shooting a ( ) in High Sec. A Ban for shooting in a starting system. No if and or buts.


Hmm, decent. It means that alts on the same account will not be protected (an issue with any other method as we the player cannot determine who is a new account and who is just a new character).
Only issue is that alt accounts of old players can be protected in this way.


On a side note, it would be hilarious to find a vet abusing the rookie rules by continually taking from cans in Arnon (if things get that direction).

Also, my question (overall) still has yet to be answered: what about rookie on rookie violence? Is that bannable?
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#520 - 2012-06-16 15:41:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Cutter Isaacson
RubyPorto wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:

To your first point regarding rookie missions, I honestly see no reason for an older player to go back to do them, and thus no reason to not ban them from those systems. I do however agree that it would require at least some Dev time, but then as others have pointed out if this is such a huge issue then undoubtedly CCP will find time to do it.

To your next point regarding SOE missions, I think that sounds reasonable if we are to assume that CCP really cannot find any spare Dev time to make the alterations I mentioned. Though if you consider the amount of time and money they would need to expend over the lifetime of the game in order to maintain such an inefficient system, then perhaps they would be more inclined to spend money and time now to save themselves years of constant work.

It is merely a case of cost effectiveness, something we know CCP already takes in to consideration when looking at game balancing etc. The combined effect of these changes would remove an awful lot of cases of rookies being "messed with", leaving a much lighter case load for Dev's or GM's to deal with where things fall in to the grey areas.

And finally, common sense, shall we just agree to use the term "intelligence" instead? Since common sense is clearly not the right way to put it.


1) Standings repair, not everyone does them all at once, and some rookies have to be told to do them after banging their head into the wall for a while.

2) Locking the loot cans, making them unprobeable, etc. steals a possible learning experience from the rookie, ensuring that when they do get can flipped, they are likely to have a greater loss while expecting it less. The SOE arc is usually completed by a rookie soon after at least one (and likely more) ship losses, so another loss shouldn't be too shocking. As for the cost of resetting missions, that depends on how often it happens; I've run the arc a number of times (for standings), and I never had any trouble.

"Intelligence" is just as bad. Sorities Paradox* applies any time you try to define a class with a simple natural language definition.

*Stanford's Philosophy Department, since you dislike Wikipedia



Ok, so there are no other ways to repair standings then? Pretty sure there are, and lets face it, EVE is all about consequences, if you choose to go -10 then getting back from there should be difficult and not as simple as running noob starter missions. As for Rookies being dim, changes could also be made to the NPE to ensure a little more clarity and thus avoid such problems.

As for allowing can flipping in SOE missions in order to teach them a lesson, that is a woefully pathetic excuse. One often used by people with little to no real PvP experience who are merely looking for super weak targets to abuse. This should not be tolerated under any circumstances. Let them learn that lesson in level 2 or 3 missions, it won't take long. There is no reason whatsoever to allow it on the SOE missions as well.

Actually as for losing ships most of them will have already lost a ship or two BEFORE they get to the SOE stuff, especially since ship loss is now included as part of the NPE. My corp mate and best friend is also a rookie, she learned about ship loss in her tutorial missions, and then again when she started running her career agent missions, so it seems that it is working perfectly well already. If you want a reason NOT to protect rookies during SOE missions, that is not one of them.

It is also worth noting that yet again, you are avoiding my point about common sense and intelligence by arguing semantics. You and I and everyone else here knows full well that unless you are a sad little bastard, we should all share some basic level of morality when it comes to the abusing of what could be considered minors. And for those that don't there is the ban hammer.

EDIT: Removed comment about me not being the one with wiki issues as you seem to have spotted your error Cool

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