These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Anti-Carebears upset me very much

Author
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#41 - 2012-06-21 16:54:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
I'm quite sure you can agree with me that petition about this is the best way to go, but we don't have to agree on what I think it's fair or not.
Sure, but the better solution would be for them to stop waffling on the whole join/quit corp mechanics and implement a proper solution (much in the same way as their waffling on the rookie protection rules should be solved through proper mechanics and… you know… having an actually clear rookie rule).

With a bit of luck, should they ever manage to make limited engagements work as part of Crimewatch 2.0, they can just make the whole problem go away: anyone can be kicked at any point, and any outstanding engagement remain active until the normal timers run out. That way, the accidental-CONCORDoken that caused them to fiddle with quitting in space will be gone, and they can restore that functionality.

I'm just saying that the rookie protection rule cannot be said to apply to PC corp members and still remain even remotely sane. There are risks with running and being in a corp — joining a corp means accepting those risks and stepping up to the personal responsibilities it brings. In fact, I'd rather say that in such a case, the real griefing is on the part of the recruiter, who exposes rookies to a completely new rule set without explaining to them what they're getting themselves into.
Simetraz
State War Academy
Caldari State
#42 - 2012-06-21 17:02:54 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
Didn't new that awox behaviour was encouraged by CCP.

I don't recall it being specifically discouraged either.

Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
Also reading comprehension helps, a lot of those players that guy kept killing again and again are 4 day old characters witch is obviously also encouraged by CCP.

I'm not arguing that the guy isn't pretty sad for preying on noobs nor that he shouldn't be petitioned for it, but ferchrissakes you've got 30 noobs and you can't take out one awoxer? Welcome to EVE, I guess, you're just setting yourself up for failure later on.


I don't know when I first started the corp I joined was filled with all new players.
We had a great time figuring out the game together.

Within a couple months we were in null.
Granted that was a long time ago when you were lucky to have a single station per region let alone the numbers that are out there now.

OP

Stick with it, I am glad you petitioned him he deserves the ban.
On the other side it looks like you got lucky, cause the damage he did was small and fast and over.
Hopefully you review your recruiting procedures to reduce incidents like this in the future.
All I can say is no security policy is full proof so best of luck.


Lucy Ferrr
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#43 - 2012-06-21 17:06:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucy Ferrr
Your anger is misplaced, instead of being angry at the ganker you need to be angry at your CEO and yourself. You are mad at a ganker for ganking? That's what they do. Do you get mad at water for being wet or a dog for licking his balls? You need to be mad at your CEO, you saw the guy before he joined, saw something was fishy, alerted your CEO and he ignored your concerns and 'accidently' accepted the guy. Then you need to be angry at yourself, because you knew something was wrong, you saw the guy got accepted into the corp, and you did nothing to assure the safety of you and your corp mates. In Eve when something is awry and you go about business as usual you die, that is exactly what you did business as usual, dead. If it were me and I saw a greifer accidently got in my corp, I would immediately send a convo out to all legit members and tell them to dock until it's situated, or to get in PvP boats and get ready for battle (option 2 is a hell of a lot more fun). When there is a threat you can't beat you seek safety, that's common sense it shouldn't take living in nul/low to figure that out.

To be honest you sound like a small child that just lost a video game, instead of being a good sport and admitting you loss you cry and scream that your controller is broken. What you need to be doing right now is thinking "What did we do wrong and what can we do in the future to prevent something like this?", but instead you waste your time trying to think of different ways your opponent cheated to include in your petition to CCP. Some douche infiltrating your corp is not a petition-able or banable offense, that is Eve. There is a reason there is a 3-10 day waiting period to get into ANY serious corp in Eve. Background checks are mandatory, and it's pretty apparent you guys are not doing your due diligence (you bragged yourself how many members in a little time you guys got, I am skeptical they were properly checked). If anyone should be petitioned against and banned it should be the leadership of your corp for misleading new people so badly and creating an environment where it is so easy to get ganked and/or robbed by assumed friendlies.

If you don't know how to recruit for a corp, temporally stop recruiting and educate yourself. There are a lot of tools out there for recruiters, get some tips from someone who has done it.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#44 - 2012-06-21 17:11:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
sabre906 wrote:
This assumption sounds like it was pulled fresh out of a goon's rear end.Lol
No, it's a pretty hard assurance pulled out of reasoning.

If people are still considered rookies and protected by the rookie rules while in PC corps, they're going to have to remove PC corps from the game — it's pretty much the only way to close the massive loophole they just created.

Quote:
See? This is why CCP has been coming down progressively harder on rookie-hunters.
No, this is why people have been coming down progressively harder on CCP to actually state the rules that apply to the game: because they keep giving loose and useless answers that only open up for larger and large abuse of the rules. Their idea that with fuzzier rules, the abuses will be fewer is the result of a fevered and unimaginative mind — one that has no clue about what players will do with such rules. The result will be far worse than some new players accidentally getting blow up (which isn't much of a loss). Fuzzy rules only ever lead to one thing: more abuse, more work for GM's, and much much weaker arguments for the GM's.

Quote:
Any new excuses you come up with is just more hassle for CCP to negate. Rinse and repeat.
It's not an excuse. It's a statement of fact: if you're in a PC corp, you are open to all forms of PvP — it comes inherent with being in a PC corp.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#45 - 2012-06-21 17:12:37 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
I'm quite sure you can agree with me that petition about this is the best way to go, but we don't have to agree on what I think it's fair or not.
Sure, but the better solution would be for them to stop waffling on the whole join/quit corp mechanics and implement a proper solution (much in the same way as their waffling on the rookie protection rules should be solved through proper mechanics and… you know… having an actually clear rookie rule).

With a bit of luck, should they ever manage to make limited engagements work as part of Crimewatch 2.0, they can just make the whole problem go away: anyone can be kicked at any point, and any outstanding engagement remain active until the normal timers run out. That way, the accidental-CONCORDoken that caused them to fiddle with quitting in space will be gone, and they can restore that functionality.

I'm just saying that the rookie protection rule cannot be said to apply to PC corp members and still remain even remotely sane. There are risks with running and being in a corp — joining a corp means accepting those risks and stepping up to the personal responsibilities it brings. In fact, I'd rather say that in such a case, the real griefing is on the part of the recruiter, who exposes rookies to a completely new rule set without explaining to them what they're getting themselves into.




Yes the lack of explicit rules restricts players iterations however whenever there's some rule there's always dudes to exploit each and every forgotten or non explicit word.

Why? -well this is a whole new debate, if playing some game for "x" person means search rule failures to exploit and claim "hahaha dev's I'm better than you" then I have some hard time either explaining or understand those guys motivations.
You know, looks a little bit like guys using hacks (they usually pay) for internet greatness on free to pay FPS games.

I agree with GM's when it comes to decide if yes or not at some point there must be a ban, systems and rules are mechanic and can not adapt to all situations people might come up with and the only way to make it fair for every one is still common sense and someone putting limits.

This is the kind of thing that shouldn't even be discussed or reason for so many forum words, if those self proclaimed elite pvp fans were that much pvp fans they wouldn't even have justify their actions with newbs "education" theorems completely absurd.

I have one moto in what concerns newbs and pvp: if you show your face in low you're good to taste the fire, if you show your face in null you're good to get a fast pod home ticket.
In high sec? -well, everything that isn't flying a T2 frig/cruiser or battle cruiser/battleship is a noob even then I can always look "info" to figure out what's up.
Not claiming it's the best way to do but is I start shooting everything because I can then I have to accept consequences and stfu instead of crying on forums.

brb

sabre906
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2012-06-21 17:18:18 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
I'm quite sure you can agree with me that petition about this is the best way to go, but we don't have to agree on what I think it's fair or not.
Sure, but the better solution would be for them to stop waffling on the whole join/quit corp mechanics and implement a proper solution (much in the same way as their waffling on the rookie protection rules should be solved through proper mechanics and… you know… having an actually clear rookie rule).

With a bit of luck, should they ever manage to make limited engagements work as part of Crimewatch 2.0, they can just make the whole problem go away: anyone can be kicked at any point, and any outstanding engagement remain active until the normal timers run out. That way, the accidental-CONCORDoken that caused them to fiddle with quitting in space will be gone, and they can restore that functionality.

I'm just saying that the rookie protection rule cannot be said to apply to PC corp members and still remain even remotely sane. There are risks with running and being in a corp — joining a corp means accepting those risks and stepping up to the personal responsibilities it brings. In fact, I'd rather say that in such a case, the real griefing is on the part of the recruiter, who exposes rookies to a completely new rule set without explaining to them what they're getting themselves into.


Don't kid yourself. The people asking for "clear rookie rule" are those noob-hunters who will then find loopholes and point to the rules and say "see? this wasn't mentioned, so it has to be allowed."

If "clear" rules were ever established, it will be an all-encompassing one that you won't like. This idiocy will turn highsec into pvp free zone one of these days.

Same rules as raising teenagers:
-If you think you've found a loophole, you haven't.
-If you think you're clever, you're not.
-If have to ask if it breaks rules, it does.
-If you like it, it's not allowed.Lol
Blastcaps Madullier
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Sedition.
#47 - 2012-06-21 17:20:51 UTC
Cebraio wrote:
Marconus Orion wrote:
Is there a TL;DR for this TL;DR?

tl:dr: His corp got a guy accepted who likes to blow up noobs and they can't beat nor kick him - or didn't try hard enough yet.


or simply due to them being 4 days old, lacked the skills maybe against a older player.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#48 - 2012-06-21 17:22:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
I have one moto in what concerns newbs and pvp: if you show your face in low you're good to taste the fire, if you show your face in null you're good to get a fast pod home ticket.
In high sec? -well, everything that isn't flying a T2 frig/cruiser or battle cruiser/battleship is a noob even then I can always look "info" to figure out what's up.
Yeah, see, that's a horrid rule should it be applied properly, because you have just made it possible for me to move the entire wealth of the universe at zero risk.

…and no “but, common sense” is not a counter-argument, because that's just the thing with rookies: they are new; they have no clue; they can be tricked into moving those riches for me. So suddenly, your rule reads “anyone who's old enough to know the value of things is a newb; anyone too new to know that value is fair game”, which seems… counter-productive.

CCP's new rule is idiotic. There are no two ways about it. It is unenforceable, it provides no guidance, and it is superbly exploitable. The rules as they worked before (or at least as everyone though they worked, including the GMs), did not have any of those flaws. If they wanted to be nice to rookies, they could have shifted their policy to be more lenient in terms of reimbursements for “clueless losses” — something that they can determine by the same opaque and unofficial rule they use to determine what is a rookie that shouldn't be messed with. That way they can keep their discretionary protection and still not have a completely senseless rule set.

sabre906 wrote:
Don't kid yourself. The people asking for "clear rookie rule" are those noob-hunters
Incorrect. The ones asking for clear rookie rules are those who want to protect rookies and go after older players (who will otherwise be able to hide behind said rookie rules). Noob-hunters will just ignore the rules or abuse them to be afforded protection by the same rules. That's why the rules are thoroughly awful: because they offer that protection to the wrong people. Those who want the rules to be clear want those abuses removed.

Quote:
If "clear" rules were ever established, it will be an all-encompassing one that you won't like.
Seeing as how you can have crystal-clear rules that I very much like, you're just as incorrect here, too.

Quote:
This idiocy will turn highsec into pvp free zone one of these days.
Yes. That's why the idiocy needs to stop and clear rules be implemented reinstated to get rid of the idiotic ones we have at the moment.
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#49 - 2012-06-21 17:23:53 UTC
Blastcaps Madullier wrote:
or simply due to them being 4 days old, lacked the skills maybe against a older player.

Is it really that hard to create a fleet, undock, fleet warp, F1 BUTAN at the same time?

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.

Aulx-Gao Ekanon
#50 - 2012-06-21 17:24:45 UTC
What the heck . . . the post where I contributed actual content that was quoted by the OP has disappeared. X

Bad show.

_Naughty by nature, wicked by choice. _

Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#51 - 2012-06-21 17:29:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Lin-Young Borovskova
Yep, as I just said, not pretending I know better the rules or my behaviour is better whatsoever, those are my own rules and I stick to.
Does it means I miserably fail some times? -of course I do but I'm never upset about this because the impact on my game is absolutely null, even being "older" player I just took a lesson and next time I'll be on my toes.

brb

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#52 - 2012-06-21 17:37:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
Yep, as I just said, not pretending I know better the rules or my behaviour is better whatsoever, those are my own rules and I stick to.
Does it means I miserably fail some times? -of course I do but I'm never upset about this because the impact on my game is absolutely null, even being "older" player I just took a lesson and next time I'll be on my toes.
No, it doesn't mean you fail. It means you can afford to let abusers slip through the net, mainly because it's not up to you to keep the universe in working order.

The GMs, on the other hand, have to do exactly that, so they can't rely on such a rule, and expecting us to do the same is a very bad policy. That is the whole problem: by trying to loosen up the policy to catch more abusers, they've made the rule set immensely more open to abuse.
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
#53 - 2012-06-21 17:45:05 UTC
Ignorance is not an excuse. You think CCP would allow wars with other corporations if rookies in corporations were still considered rookies? May as well chuck out factional warfare as the occasional rookie joins it and gets podded. I have killed and podded a rookie twice while I was in Privateer Alliance as he was attempting to mine in a velator. Does that make me a horrendous griefer? I considered killing him a third time but to be honest I really couldn't be bothered as my ammo was worth more than what he would drop [ I was well within my rights to kill him however].

You join a corporation you are no longer a rookie simple. Otherwise CCP should stop rookies joining corporations, which would make corporatiion alts a bit more of a hassle to handle. People who are against killing new players in all situations are just not in the EvE mindset and should really go back to WoW, as their righteous indignation over a self-created injustice is not welcome.
SKYIINET Caliborus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#54 - 2012-06-22 02:20:55 UTC  |  Edited by: SKYIINET Caliborus
Lucy Ferrr wrote:
Your anger is misplaced, instead of being angry at the ganker you need to be angry at your CEO and yourself. You are mad at a ganker for ganking? That's what they do. Do you get mad at water for being wet or a dog for licking his balls? You need to be mad at your CEO, you saw the guy before he joined, saw something was fishy, alerted your CEO and he ignored your concerns and 'accidently' accepted the guy. Then you need to be angry at yourself, because you knew something was wrong, you saw the guy got accepted into the corp, and you did nothing to assure the safety of you and your corp mates. In Eve when something is awry and you go about business as usual you die, that is exactly what you did business as usual, dead. If it were me and I saw a greifer accidently got in my corp, I would immediately send a convo out to all legit members and tell them to dock until it's situated, or to get in PvP boats and get ready for battle (option 2 is a hell of a lot more fun). When there is a threat you can't beat you seek safety, that's common sense it shouldn't take living in nul/low to figure that out.

To be honest you sound like a small child that just lost a video game, instead of being a good sport and admitting you loss you cry and scream that your controller is broken. What you need to be doing right now is thinking "What did we do wrong and what can we do in the future to prevent something like this?", but instead you waste your time trying to think of different ways your opponent cheated to include in your petition to CCP. Some douche infiltrating your corp is not a petition-able or banable offense, that is Eve. There is a reason there is a 3-10 day waiting period to get into ANY serious corp in Eve. Background checks are mandatory, and it's pretty apparent you guys are not doing your due diligence (you bragged yourself how many members in a little time you guys got, I am skeptical they were properly checked). If anyone should be petitioned against and banned it should be the leadership of your corp for misleading new people so badly and creating an environment where it is so easy to get ganked and/or robbed by assumed friendlies.

If you don't know how to recruit for a corp, temporally stop recruiting and educate yourself. There are a lot of tools out there for recruiters, get some tips from someone who has done it.


The people I am aiming these statements towards are everyone who it applies to and not directly to Lucy Ferrr

Yes, you are correct, What had happened was at the fault of the CEO, but the member was NEVER to be allowed in the corp.

But if you read the whole post, you would have seen where I SAID NOT TO RECRUIT THE MEMBER????

(If you omitted that you're just an idiot, and I therefore declare you as a fail to the game, and yes, I'm saying that even though I'm new to this game.)

My corporation leads and I had revised how we recruit, because Apparently recruiting 30 members and having 1 player giving us a hard time is bad enough.

Here's what the post was about if you don't mind though; Why are there players who do this?

I have no feelings towards what happened, it's just the same as another person being a jackass, but why?

And here's something else I'd like to say, I'm perfectly fine with the rules.

If a player is a rookie, and they join a player corporation, where the hell is the experience these rookies are supposed to gain
to not be a rookie anymore? I Haven't seen much logic on either side.

I am adapting to how players do things, bad, sad, and good.

I am not trying to give out the impression that I am a little kid crying over this, as I said, and for you idiots who apparently didn't read the whole passage, READ THE WHOLE PASSAGE AGAIN.

What I typed at the end is what I was conveying the ideas through.

And one of the things I like about this game is the ability for someone to get in and screw around with your players,

Quote:
MineCraft ain't fun until you loose that full diamond armor you worked long and hard for to obtain, even if pvp isn't allowed, you aren't allowed to cry.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#55 - 2012-06-22 02:33:56 UTC
SKYIINET Caliborus wrote:
they had a good damn idea of how the game really was

(...)

And the player's actions were petitioned, this includes spawntrapping, quickscoping and spamming of the corporation chat.

(...)

the corporation I'm in has many new players

Corp full of newbies, run by some guy that petitions "spawn trapping, quick scoping and spamming corp chat"?

Certainly sounds like you all know how the game really is.

SKYIINET Caliborus wrote:
If you don't know what a universal player game etiquette is, it's where old players help out the new players, or players interact with each other in a decent way. You can still pvp, because it's part of the game, just don't be a jerk or destroy them repeatedly without a good cause.

Sounds like my current alliance.

Maybe you should join a corporation run by someone who actually knows what the hell they are doing?

SKYIINET Caliborus wrote:
BTW NOT ALL PLAYERS WERE LOGGED IN AT ONCE THERE WERE 1-9 AT THE TIME, AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO BUY A SHIP AND FLY IT WITHOUT LEAVING THE STATION TO GO GET IT.

You realise you can undock in a pod and warp off, right?

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]

SKYIINET Caliborus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2012-06-22 03:01:21 UTC
Who is MXZF btw?

Honestly, everyone in my corp is leaning how the game is. It's in space with a bunch of planets and stations plunged in liquid dynamics.

And I'm new, I make mistakes, the mistake that happened this time was not mine.

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#57 - 2012-06-22 03:04:18 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Yeah, see, that's a horrid rule should it be applied properly, because you have just made it possible for me to move the entire wealth of the universe at zero risk.

…and no “but, common sense” is not a counter-argument, because that's just the thing with rookies: they are new; they have no clue; they can be tricked into moving those riches for me. So suddenly, your rule reads “anyone who's old enough to know the value of things is a newb; anyone too new to know that value is fair game”, which seems… counter-productive.

Newbies moving PLEXes in their cute Merlin, huh...

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#58 - 2012-06-22 03:10:14 UTC
CCP can easily check the griefers account history and killmail record to ascertain a pattern. This sounds exactly like one of those loopholes that CCP was referring to about player bullies taking advantage and bending the rules.

CCP said do not mess with Rookies. CCP didn't say just rookies in NPC corp, CCP said DO NOT MESS WITH ROOKIES.

If that isn't clear enough, wake up and drink some coffee. If clarification is needed, Rookie chat is active for 30 days.

Personally I hope the guy get's his ISP # perma-banned. This whole 'killing new players to teach them a lesson' is nothing more than a fail attempt to justify their actions.
RAP ACTION HERO
#59 - 2012-06-22 04:00:02 UTC
your whole corp should be disbanded

vitoc erryday

SKYIINET Caliborus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2012-06-22 04:19:18 UTC  |  Edited by: SKYIINET Caliborus
RAP ACTION HERO wrote:
your whole corp should be disbanded


For what reason? They won't be able to join any other corps because most of my recruits that wanted to join a corp said they were useless. And that's the exact wording.

I ain't the one who's wrong here for doing what I'm doing. I'm just trying to have a good time playing EVE with some fellow gamers.

The hell's wrong with some of you.


Are you trying to tell me and my corporation members how to play a game?

I'm not fine with that.

What I am fine with is if:

You are giving me advice and telling me I should learn how the game works before making a corporation .

If that's not what you are telling me, but you just wanna be a jackass, then don't bother replying anymore.

If you are telling me that, then I understand you dislike it because you are still trying to be a jackass, and there I say trying; somebody woke up thinking their opinion mattered.