These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#61 - 2012-08-27 19:41:49 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Simplicity tends to provide better robustness in these matters.


Which is what CCP did. They said simply, "Don't **** with noobs". Which is what you are arguing is inadequate. Care to clarify?

Mr Epeen Cool
Tah'ris Khlador
Space Ghosts.
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#62 - 2012-08-27 19:45:39 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Simplicity tends to provide better robustness in these matters.


Which is what CCP did. They said simply, "Don't **** with noobs". Which is what you are arguing is inadequate. Care to clarify?

Mr Epeen Cool


You're arguing that obscurity is clarity. How do vague statements make things simpler?

Member of the Pink Pony Killboard Padding Alliance
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#63 - 2012-08-27 19:46:53 UTC
Tippia wrote:
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.

The problem with the current method is that there is a list published on the website with no obvious connection in game. A person can engage in activities they've learned about solely in-game and be slapped by a GM for doing something THEY WERE NEVER TOLD WAS WRONG. Out-of-game rules like that should be avoided if at all possible...and it's certainly possible here.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#64 - 2012-08-27 19:48:49 UTC
Tah'ris Khlador wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Simplicity tends to provide better robustness in these matters.


Which is what CCP did. They said simply, "Don't **** with noobs". Which is what you are arguing is inadequate. Care to clarify?

Mr Epeen Cool


You're arguing that obscurity is clarity. How do vague statements make things simpler?


There is nothing obscure about their position.

Mr Epeen Cool
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#65 - 2012-08-27 19:53:09 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
There is nothing obscure about their position.

Aside from what constitutes a noob.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#66 - 2012-08-27 19:55:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Mr Epeen wrote:
Which is what CCP did.
…yes, except for the whole “simplicity” and “robustness” part. There is no simplicity because there is no simple way to identify who's covered, and there is no robustness because there are no clear rules.

Quote:
There is nothing obscure about their position.
…except for not being clear about who's covered and who isn't because there is no way of identifying who qualifies as a “newbie”… oh, and not being clear about what you can do to them, since “messing with” is completely nondescript. The latter would be less of a problem though, if the first part wasn't so unclear.

FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
The problem with the current method is that there is a list published on the website with no obvious connection in game. A person can engage in activities they've learned about solely in-game and be slapped by a GM for doing something THEY WERE NEVER TOLD WAS WRONG. Out-of-game rules like that should be avoided if at all possible...and it's certainly possible here.
True enough, and as mentioned earlier, there's also the basic education issue for the newbies who need to have these things slapped in their face at the earliest convenient moment. But really, that's a general problem with the official wiki pages on the whole: they're not being maintained by those who should be maintaining them (for instance, search the item database for any of the items introduced in the last year or so), and they're off-limits for those who'd be willing to step in.

None of the ‘C’s in CCP stand for “communication,” and it shows, in this as in everything else. Blink
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#67 - 2012-08-27 19:58:14 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Simplicity tends to provide better robustness in these matters.


Which is what CCP did. They said simply, "Don't **** with noobs". Which is what you are arguing is inadequate. Care to clarify?

Mr Epeen Cool

There's a difference between vague and simple. That's vague. Vague is not simple.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#68 - 2012-08-27 20:08:33 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Simplicity tends to provide better robustness in these matters.


Which is what CCP did. They said simply, "Don't **** with noobs". Which is what you are arguing is inadequate. Care to clarify?

Mr Epeen Cool

There's a difference between vague and simple. That's vague. Vague is not simple.


EVE is hard, but please hold our hands as we can't understand something as simple as, "If you think it's bad, then it probably is". And then accept the consequences of our actions.

If I remember right, EVE punishes the stupid. Have you been punished lately?

Mr Epeen Cool
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#69 - 2012-08-27 20:12:34 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
EVE is hard, but please hold our hands as we can't understand something as simple as, "If you think it's bad, then it probably is".
…and the hard part of EVE that you're having problem with is when you don't think it's bad but it is anyway and there was no way for you to know.

And you're defending that kind of system over one where you know whether it's bad or not and where there are no exploits hiding behind all the vagueness. Why is that? Why are you so against clear rules? Why don't you want to remove the exploits?
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#70 - 2012-08-27 20:15:39 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Simplicity tends to provide better robustness in these matters.


Which is what CCP did. They said simply, "Don't **** with noobs". Which is what you are arguing is inadequate. Care to clarify?

Mr Epeen Cool

There's a difference between vague and simple. That's vague. Vague is not simple.


EVE is hard, but please hold our hands as we can't understand something as simple as, "If you think it's bad, then it probably is". And then accept the consequences of our actions.

If I remember right, EVE punishes the stupid. Have you been punished lately?

Mr Epeen Cool

Excuse me, but I thought we were talking about a game that encourages deviant behavior, and then says some deviant behavior will get you banned but is unclear as to exactly what.

If you don't see a problem with this, then I don't think any amount of explaining will ever make you understand.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#71 - 2012-08-27 20:25:19 UTC
Tippia wrote:

And you're defending that kind of system over one where you know whether it's bad or not and where there are no exploits hiding behind all the vagueness. Why is that?

Once again, tipps, I'm not defending it. I am accepting it. Just like I do with the rest of the game.
Quote:
...you know whether it's bad or not and where there are no exploits hiding

There are always exploits. No matter what your perfect solution is, it will be exploited. It's a lesser of many evils situation. Not the black and white that is all you seem to see. Is your monitor really that old?

Mr Epeen Cool
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#72 - 2012-08-27 20:28:58 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

Excuse me, but I thought we were talking about a game that encourages deviant behavior, and then says some deviant behavior will get you banned but is unclear as to exactly what.

If you don't see a problem with this, then I don't think any amount of explaining will ever make you understand.


It's only unclear to those that like to be intentionally obtuse, those that like to argue and those that like to troll.

Mr Epeen Cool
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#73 - 2012-08-27 20:30:00 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Mr Epeen wrote:
Tippia wrote:

And you're defending that kind of system over one where you know whether it's bad or not and where there are no exploits hiding behind all the vagueness. Why is that?

Once again, tipps, I'm not defending it. I am accepting it. Just like I do with the rest of the game.

You wouldn't be posting if that were the case.

Mr Epeen wrote:
Tippia wrote:
...you know whether it's bad or not and where there are no exploits hiding

There are always exploits. No matter what your perfect solution is, it will be exploited. It's a lesser of many evils situation. Not the black and white that is all you seem to see. Is your monitor really that old?

Mr Epeen Cool

"There will always be exploits, so let's just make the rules unclear so that people who push the limits in this game are punished."

Mr Epeen wrote:
It's only unclear to those that like to be intentionally obtuse, those that like to argue and those that like to troll.

Mr Epeen Cool

"Don't mess with rookies."

If that's clear, then please define what a rookie is.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#74 - 2012-08-27 20:35:08 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Once again, tipps, I'm not defending it. I am accepting it.
Accepting mediocrity is even worse…
And no, by arguing against improvement you are indeed defending poor protection and the retention of exploits. Why is that?

Quote:
There are always exploits.
So can you think of one with the suggested rule?
Jim Era
#75 - 2012-08-27 20:36:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Jim Era
how did this get to this thread o.O


I don't know
I don't recognize this thread.

Wat™
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#76 - 2012-08-27 20:43:12 UTC
You know what... outside of rookie systems and SoE Epic Arcs or w/e else these newbies may roam.... like the ghetto where real men live and pew pew.... they WILL go down in a ball of fire. If they get wardeced... ball of fire. If they agro you in empire... prison sex, concordokken and or ball of fire.

Nothing else matters.

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#77 - 2012-08-27 20:43:43 UTC
Jim Era wrote:
how did this get to this thread o.O


I don't know
I don't recognize this thread.

Forums are ****** up. I think I read that CCP is already aware of the issue and working to fix it.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#78 - 2012-08-27 20:50:37 UTC
Tippia wrote:

And no, by arguing against improvement

Improvement?
Tippia wrote:
Quote:
There are always exploits.
So can you think of one with the suggested rule?


I'd like to keep my posting privileges.

Mr Epeen Cool
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#79 - 2012-08-27 21:05:15 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
I'd like to keep my posting privileges.

Mr Epeen Cool

Are you really that ********? Pointing out a possible exploit to another player's suggestion doesn't violate any rule whatsoever. The rule only exists to prevent discussion of current exploits.

Maybe you're just a troll.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#80 - 2012-08-27 21:31:39 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
I'd like to keep my posting privileges.

Mr Epeen Cool

Are you really that ********? Pointing out a possible exploit to another player's suggestion doesn't violate any rule whatsoever. The rule only exists to prevent discussion of current exploits.

Maybe you're just a troll.


Nice!

Tag team.

Angry much?


Mr Epeen Cool