These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#81 - 2012-08-27 21:39:07 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
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

Confirmed troll.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#82 - 2012-08-27 22:10:21 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
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

Confirmed troll.

Was pretty clear several pages ago.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#83 - 2012-08-27 22:40:09 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
I'm butthurt
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Me too!


I don't discuss exploits, period. More of those fuzzy rules y'all are complaining about.

You understand, right?

Mr Epeen Cool
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#84 - 2012-08-28 00:12:22 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
I'm butthurt
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Me too!


I don't discuss exploits, period. More of those fuzzy rules y'all are complaining about.

You understand, right?

Mr Epeen Cool

No I don't, I'm just a stupid goon. Can you explain it again?
Pipa Porto
#85 - 2012-08-28 00:25:02 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
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


In that case, I'm sure you'll be able to tell us all exactly what constitutes a "noob."

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#86 - 2012-08-28 00:25:13 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Improvement?
Yes. Clarity, less exploits and increased protection is an improvement over lack of clarity, more exploits and less protection.

Quote:
I'd like to keep my posting privileges.
Nice evasion. To bad it doesn't work since you wouldn't post anything that breaks the rules. So I take it you can't think of any?

…and thus, you have demonstrated that it's a massive improvement. Thank you for helping and for agreeing.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#87 - 2012-08-28 01:05:17 UTC
Tippia wrote:


…and thus, you have demonstrated that it's a massive improvement. Thank you for helping and for agreeing.


Whoooweee!

Musta had a couple a PBRs with the Swanson's this evening, 'cause you are right off the rails. Even for you.

Mr Epeen Cool
Jett0
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#88 - 2012-08-28 01:11:13 UTC
ITT, Mr Epeen Versus the World.

Occasionally plays sober
Malphilos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#89 - 2012-08-28 01:11:28 UTC
Tippia wrote:
CONCORD does't ban you from the game and has no other real-world consequences.


Wait... CONCORD is going to ban the noobs?

I think you've made it abundently clear who you're really trying to protect here. Blink

Tippia wrote:
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.


I think you're wrong. Why don't you try that out and let us know how it goes?

Tippia wrote:
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?


Where? And if I've got any doubt, no. Hey, lookit that! I didn't get banned! How in the world did I manage this mystical feat?

Tippia wrote:
Again, the question remains: why are you opposed to absolute and crystal clear protection for newbies?


I'm not, we've got it.

What you're looking for (see above) is protection for yourself. Your "protect the noobs" crap is cynical at best.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#90 - 2012-08-28 01:16:09 UTC
Jett0 wrote:
ITT, Mr Epeen Versus the World.


Nah.

Just the three stooges. I'm pretty used to them and their antics by now.

Mr Epeen Cool
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#91 - 2012-08-28 01:17:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Mr Epeen wrote:
Whoooweee!
Yes, that's what happens if you fail to support your argument: you end up supporting mine instead. Maybe you should have made more effort to answer some very simple questions and wasted less time failing to make snide comments.

Quote:
Wait... CONCORD is going to ban the noobs?
What part if “CONCORD does't ban you from the game and has no other real-world consequences” did you not understand?

Quote:
I think you're wrong.
That's your problem. The simple fact of the matter is that the current rules are purposefully stated to allow it.

Quote:
Where?
Doesn't matter. So, would you?

Quote:
I'm not, we've got it.
…except that there is no absolute and crystal clear protection for newbies right now. So why are you so opposed to creating it? Why do you want to keep rules that let you kill newbies? Why do you want to keep rules that offer unwarranted protection to old players?
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#92 - 2012-08-28 01:19:32 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Yes


No

Mr Epeen Cool
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#93 - 2012-08-28 01:21:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Mr Epeen wrote:
No
So you agree that you have no argument, then. Good. Thank you for your support and for proving my point.

By the way, why are you so opposed to creating clear rules that offer crystal clear protection for newbies? Why do you want to keep rules that let you kill newbies? Why do you want to keep rules that offer unwarranted protection to old players?

Oh, and: 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?
Psychotic Monk
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#94 - 2012-08-28 01:35:05 UTC
Hey Tippia, I didn't follow the previous thread and didn't see your proposed rules. And your posting history is a bit difficult to search. Mind linking them so I can get caught up?

Belligerent Undesirables Selling Griefer Immunity
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#95 - 2012-08-28 01:40:40 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:
The SOE epic arc is protected?

Simple question: why?

If you're going to protect that arc you should also protect Angel Sound (the Angel Cartel epic arc).


New Player Experience.

CCP got tired of people that relentlessly kill new players, however this only applies in starter & SoE epic arc systems. They're still fair game everywhere else.

Edit: If you're an older character running the SoE epic arc or mining in a starter system, you aren't protected under the new rules.


Honestly its kinda dumb... What is totally fair game in every other system in the game is bannable there.

all you have to do is trick the noob out of the starter system

not that Im even a PVPer but still.

And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#96 - 2012-08-28 01:45:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Psychotic Monk wrote:
Hey Tippia, I didn't follow the previous thread and didn't see your proposed rules. And your posting history is a bit difficult to search. Mind linking them so I can get caught up?
It was linked a bit earlier. Find the full 30+ pages goodness here.

The short version was also presented on the first couple of pages: basically, don't try to define the protected group by some pilot characteristic, because those can and will be exploited and there will have to be more (and ever-increasing numbers of) special cases and exceptions than anyone could ever think of or list. Instead, define it by static and geography with no exceptions: anyone in a newbie system is off-limits. Then clearly define what is and what isn't a newbie system by simply listing them. The amount of security afforded to older players is no more than what they'd get in a station, and newbies get all the space they need to learn the basics of the game before tackling the big bad world. When they try to leave, tell them with no uncertainty that here there be dragons.

In essence, go back to the old rule and make it iron-clad.
Malphilos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#97 - 2012-08-28 02:27:47 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Wait... CONCORD is going to ban the noobs?
What part if “CONCORD does't ban you from the game and has no other real-world consequences” did you not understand?[/quote]

Deliberately obtuse?

I said rules protect as much as CONCORD does (that being not at all, they merely punish the guilty), and your rebuttal was that CONCORD doesn't ban.

Meaning either you consider the rules even more protective than CONCORD, or you're actually interested in protecting people hoping to gank noobs.

As I said, cynical at best.
Mistah Ewedynao
Ice Axe Psycho Killers
#98 - 2012-08-28 02:29:48 UTC
Can we change this to "Move all level 4 missions to low sec", or "New Exhuners are way over buffed", or "High sec suxors", or "Why can't I can flip noobs with my 5 yr old character???"..

Oh wait..............Oops

Nerf Goons

Nuke em from orbit....it's the only way to be sure.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#99 - 2012-08-28 02:34:52 UTC
Malphilos wrote:
Deliberately obtuse?
I'm beginning to think that you are, yes.

Quote:
I said rules protect as much as CONCORD does
…and I explained that they do so much more since CONCORD has no real-world consequences whereas these rules do. CONCORD doesn't offer protection because nothing is actually lost. They don't enforce any rules — they're just a game mechanic to impose aggression costs.

Rules that mean you'll eventually end up blacklisted from TQ, on the other hand, provide protection. Oh, and the unlike the automated game mechanic, the rules don't actually punish anyone.
Pipa Porto
#100 - 2012-08-28 02:57:24 UTC
Malphilos wrote:
Tippia wrote:
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?


Where? And if I've got any doubt, no. Hey, lookit that! I didn't get banned! How in the world did I manage this mystical feat?


Ok, perfect. Now everybody just needs to make a 4 day old alt to haul their PLEX around, because they're protected newbies, right? Because "newbie" is undefined, you must have doubts about every 4 day old in a newbie ship carrying 50 PLEX, otherwise tell us what makes you think one 4 day old in a newbie ship with 50 PLEX is different from another 4 day old in a newbie ship with 50 PLEX. And clearly their location is not a guaranteed indication, since the protections are not limited to the listed newbie systems.

Oh, wait... that's one of the (many) problems with trying to protect an undefined class.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto