These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Rookie System Page Update

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Idris Helion
Doomheim
#41 - 2012-08-27 17:04:21 UTC
Tah'ris Khlador wrote:
Can we get this page updated?

Apparently the entirety of the SOE epic arc is protected for players under 1 month old now and bans are being given out but this has not been posted. Previously it was just Arnon that was protected in this manner.

I support the ruling (I haven't hung around the epic arc in a LONG time), but still feel that if a rule is being enforced, it should be made at least known.


Wasn't that at least in part due to that Socratic dude who made a personal life-mission out of griefing noobs in Arnon? (At least until Zedrik Cayne took him down, anyway.)
Tah'ris Khlador
Space Ghosts.
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#42 - 2012-08-27 17:22:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Tah'ris Khlador
Idris Helion wrote:
Tah'ris Khlador wrote:
Can we get this page updated?

Apparently the entirety of the SOE epic arc is protected for players under 1 month old now and bans are being given out but this has not been posted. Previously it was just Arnon that was protected in this manner.

I support the ruling (I haven't hung around the epic arc in a LONG time), but still feel that if a rule is being enforced, it should be made at least known.


Wasn't that at least in part due to that Socratic dude who made a personal life-mission out of griefing noobs in Arnon? (At least until Zedrik Cayne took him down, anyway.)


Socratic remained in Arnon for a looooong time after he was "brought down" with the smart-bombing trick. (If you don't know to what I'm referring, search YouTube for Socratic's Fall). [EDIT: I should say, he ratted back up very slowly and then returned to Arnon]. Eventually this individual "disappeared" from EVE, never to log in again. The changes for the Epic Arc and SOE is part of refurbishing the New Player Experience and an attempt to improve player retention through the first few weeks of EVE. These changes have taken place a long time after the disappearance of Arnon's most famous occupant.

Member of the Pink Pony Killboard Padding Alliance
Ghost of Truth
Mad Dawg Industries
#43 - 2012-08-27 17:42:29 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Andski wrote:
"i need to pad my killboard with two week old players in t1 frigates that loot my cans"



Socratic is that you?


Is that douche still stuck in that system?
Malphilos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#44 - 2012-08-27 17:55:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Malphilos
Tippia wrote:
What you and Tippia are arguing for isn't protection for rookies
Incorrect. We're arguing for protection of those that need to be protected and open season on those who try to hide behind that protection when they're not entitled to it. We want the guilty to be sanctioned. We also don't want cowards to hide behind CCP's skirts.[/quote]

As previously noted, rules don't protect anyone, they provide for punishment for the guilty. What you're arguing for will only serve to provide a "defense" for folks who want to screw with people they're pretty sure they shouldn't.

Tippia wrote:
Quote:
If you can't tell what a rookie is ( or want to pretend that's the case), screw with people at your own risk.
It's not the rookies that are the problem. It's the old players who will (and do) exploit any protection afforded to the rookies in order to extend that protection to themselves, when the protection isn't meant for them.


You can already take out the old players. Go do it. There's no rule that says you can't.

Like a lot of things in life, if you don't think you should, you probably shouldn't. HTFU, engage at your own risk, usw.

In the end, as usual, you're arguing for nothing at all.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#45 - 2012-08-27 18:22:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Natsett Amuinn
Rules that pertain to normal in game mechanic use need to be coded. If you're trying to improve the new player experience than do it right and code in the rules to help new players. Stating rules isnt the way to do it.

Don't want new players harassed in the first month? Excellent, code it in so that new players can't be agressed in the first 30 days. New player protection is forfeit when entering low sec, or attacking another player.

Do it right CCP. Stated new player rules are a half assed way to improve the new player experience.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#46 - 2012-08-27 18:27:09 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Rules that pertain to normal in game mechanic use need to be coded. If you're trying to improve the new player experience than do it right and code in the rules to help new players. Stating rules isnt the way to do it.

Don't want new players harassed in the first month? Excellent, code it in so that new players can't be agressed in the first 30 days. New player protection is forfeit when entering low sec, or attacking another player.

Do it right CCP. Stated new player rules are a half assed way to improve the new player experience.


That's kind of funny coming from a member of the corp that would be the first to exploit what you just proposed.

Mr Epeen Cool
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#47 - 2012-08-27 18:32:59 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Rules that pertain to normal in game mechanic use need to be coded. If you're trying to improve the new player experience than do it right and code in the rules to help new players. Stating rules isnt the way to do it.

Don't want new players harassed in the first month? Excellent, code it in so that new players can't be agressed in the first 30 days. New player protection is forfeit when entering low sec, or attacking another player.

Do it right CCP. Stated new player rules are a half assed way to improve the new player experience.


That's kind of funny coming from a member of the corp that would be the first to exploit what you just proposed.

Mr Epeen Cool

By making alts to sit in high sec and can't do anything productive for the rest of the corp?

How about reading what I wrote instead of staring, transfixed at my corp name, while your pimply ass bounces up and down in its chair thinking it came up with something witty.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#48 - 2012-08-27 18:37:37 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Rules that pertain to normal in game mechanic use need to be coded. If you're trying to improve the new player experience than do it right and code in the rules to help new players. Stating rules isnt the way to do it.

Don't want new players harassed in the first month? Excellent, code it in so that new players can't be agressed in the first 30 days. New player protection is forfeit when entering low sec, or attacking another player.

Do it right CCP. Stated new player rules are a half assed way to improve the new player experience.


That's kind of funny coming from a member of the corp that would be the first to exploit what you just proposed.

Mr Epeen Cool

By making alts to sit in high sec and can't do anything productive for the rest of the corp?

How about reading what I wrote instead of staring, transfixed at my corp name, while your pimply ass bounces up and down in its chair thinking it came up with something witty.


Dude, you are even more ******** than most of SA if you can't immediately see six ways to use this to your advantage. But you are not there to think, are you? Just do what you are told.

Mr Epeen Cool
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#49 - 2012-08-27 18:42:01 UTC
Malphilos wrote:
As previously noted, rules don't protect anyone
…aside from making sure that people don't do silly things without reason because “silly” isn't worth a ban. They most certainly provide protection.

Quote:
What you're arguing for will only serve to provide a "defense" for folks who want to screw with people they're pretty sure they shouldn't.
No. Because if they did, they'd be tossed out on their ears and everyone would know it. The difference is that right now, they can appeal to ignorance as a defence. What we're arguing for would remove that. There would no longer be a “pretty sure”. There would be absolutely no question whatsoever.

Quote:
You can already take out the old players. Go do it. There's no rule that says you can't.
Actually, there is: the newbie protection rules, because there is no way for me to differentiate the two.

So the question remains: why are you opposed to absolute and crystal clear protection for newbies? Why are you against the removal of exploits used by old players to get protection they do not deserve?
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#50 - 2012-08-27 18:42:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Natsett Amuinn
Mr Epeen wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Rules that pertain to normal in game mechanic use need to be coded. If you're trying to improve the new player experience than do it right and code in the rules to help new players. Stating rules isnt the way to do it.

Don't want new players harassed in the first month? Excellent, code it in so that new players can't be agressed in the first 30 days. New player protection is forfeit when entering low sec, or attacking another player.

Do it right CCP. Stated new player rules are a half assed way to improve the new player experience.


That's kind of funny coming from a member of the corp that would be the first to exploit what you just proposed.

Mr Epeen Cool

By making alts to sit in high sec and can't do anything productive for the rest of the corp?

How about reading what I wrote instead of staring, transfixed at my corp name, while your pimply ass bounces up and down in its chair thinking it came up with something witty.


Dude, you are even more ******** than most of SA if you can't immediately see six ways to use this to your advantage. But you are not there to think, are you? Just do what you are told.

Mr Epeen Cool

Envy really isn't a good trait.

Stare at my corp name a little more.

Put X amount of estimated isk worth of goods in a ship and new player protection goes away. Enter null or low sec and new player protection goes away. Leave the npc corp within the first 30 days and protection gone. Attack another player and protection gone. Steal from a player and protection gone.

Stop being a willing idiot and use the grey matter between your ears.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#51 - 2012-08-27 18:52:46 UTC
Tippia wrote:

So the question remains: why are you opposed to absolute and crystal clear protection for newbies?


Who cares.

It's CCP that is opposed to easily exploitable written rules. I'm sure they've noted your opinion (since you've been braying it over and over) and duly ignored it as it deserves.

Mr Epeen Cool
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#52 - 2012-08-27 19:01:57 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:

Envy really isn't a good trait.

Stare at my corp name a little more.

Put X amount of estimated isk worth of goods in a ship and new player protection goes away. Enter null or low sec and new player protection goes away. Leave the npc corp within the first 30 days and protection gone. Attack another player and protection gone. Steal from a player and protection gone.

Stop being a willing idiot and use the grey matter between your ears.


Would you like to edit a few more times before I respond?

Mr Epeen Cool
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#53 - 2012-08-27 19:03:47 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Who cares.
I do, since I'd like to see newbies protected and I don't understand why anyone would be so adamantly against rules that offered such protection.

Quote:
It's CCP that is opposed to easily exploitable written rules.
So why do they create them, rather than institute rules that leaves zero wiggle-room for would-be exploiters and pretty much complete freedom for the GMs? And why do so many people want to see those easily exploitable rules stick around rather than have them replaced by better ones?
Malphilos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#54 - 2012-08-27 19:09:15 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Malphilos wrote:
As previously noted, rules don't protect anyone
…aside from making sure that people don't do silly things without reason because “silly” isn't worth a ban. They most certainly provide protection.


Certainly no more, and effectively less, than CONCORD. They protect nothing.They provide for the sanction of folks who break them, and that's all.

Tippia wrote:
Quote:
What you're arguing for will only serve to provide a "defense" for folks who want to screw with people they're pretty sure they shouldn't.
No. Because if they did, they'd be tossed out on their ears and everyone would know it.


We're there already, ignorance is no defense. You're arguing for nothing again.

Except, it would appear, for protection for yourself:

Tippia wrote:
... there is no way for me to differentiate the two.


Based on that, it would seem that the more nebulous the rules, the more protective they are.

It becomes even more apparent that what you're looking for is cover for yourself.

Advice: Don't screw with noobs. Don't screw with people you're unsure about. Your judgement appears inadequate.
Malphilos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#55 - 2012-08-27 19:13:36 UTC
Tippia wrote:
So why do they create them, rather than institute rules that leaves zero wiggle-room for would-be exploiters and pretty much complete freedom for the GMs?


We're there already.

What, you think you could successfully argue that they weren't sufficiently specific in their rules, and the GM will be forced to say, "Curses! Foiled again by sophistic hairsplitting!"?

Give it a shot, let us know.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#56 - 2012-08-27 19:13:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Malphilos wrote:
Certainly no more, and effectively less, than CONCORD.
CONCORD does't ban you from the game and has no other real-world consequences.

Quote:
We're there already, ignorance is no defense.
Sure it is. Argue that there was no way for you to know that the guy was a newbie and bob's your uncle. The current rules are vague exactly because they want wiggle-room, in an instance where that room should not exist.

Quote:
Based on that, it would seem that the more nebulous the rules, the more protective they are.
No. The more nebulous the rules, the more wiggle-room there is to argue that you acted on good faith.

Quote:
Advice: Don't screw with noobs.
Just one problem: there is no way of telling who's a newbie, which means the rules create exploits for older players to hide behind and doesn't offer good protection for the newbies.

You come across a 4-day old character in a newbie ship carrying 50 PLEX. Is this a legal target or not in your view?

Again, the question remains: why are you opposed to absolute and crystal clear protection for newbies? Why are you against the removal of exploits used by old players to get protection they do not deserve?
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#57 - 2012-08-27 19:19:00 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
Who cares.
I do, since I'd like to see newbies protected and I don't understand why anyone would be so adamantly against rules that offered such protection.

Quote:
It's CCP that is opposed to easily exploitable written rules.
So why do they create them, rather than institute rules that leaves zero wiggle-room for would-be exploiters and pretty much complete freedom for the GMs? And why do so many people want to see those easily exploitable rules stick around rather than have them replaced by better ones?


Take some time off, sit down, and think of every single scenario that has ever, does or might ever occur involving rookies. Then define and codify a set of rules that cannot possibly be bent, twisted, perverted or outright broken by anyone, ever. Then double and triple check them.

When you can come back with an absolute foolproof set of rules designed to protect and define a rookie then people will take you seriously. After all, you seem to think its an easy task, so give it a go. I'll see you in about a decade.

Until then can this subject please die the death it so richly deserves?

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#58 - 2012-08-27 19:22:16 UTC
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Take some time off, sit down, and think of every single scenario that has ever, does or might ever occur involving rookies. Then define and codify a set of rules that cannot possibly be bent, twisted, perverted or outright broken by anyone, ever. Then double and triple check them.
Already done and presented. For some reason, no-one seems to be able to poke a whole in it and instead just dig their heels in and demand that the rules remain unspoken so as to not give crystal clear rules about who's being protected and so that exploits for old players remain…

…I wonder why.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#59 - 2012-08-27 19:24:50 UTC
I still think CCP needs to create a rookie tag that gets turned off when character hit one of a number of threshold events (account age, joining a player corp, whatever is necessary to prevent abuse). This will let us know definitively who is off limits and protect players while they learn basic game mechanics.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#60 - 2012-08-27 19:32:44 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
I still think CCP needs to create a rookie tag that gets turned off when character hit one of a number of threshold events (account age, joining a player corp, whatever is necessary to prevent abuse). This will let us know definitively who is off limits and protect players while they learn basic game mechanics.
That could work, but the main problem with that is that the thresholds would have to be so numerous and cover so many instances that it would probably be easier to just go for the original geographic limitation and be done with it. Also, it rather hinges on being able to positively identify the player behind the account (because the character stats are almost completely useless for any such flags), which is tricky to say the best.

Yes, it would be a game-mechanical way of doing it, but game mechanics are hugely vulnerable to bugs and exploits and general player cleverness… Simplicity tends to provide better robustness in these matters.