EVE General Discussion

I'll go ahead and send out another statement, to anyone who is "pro" the new change.

Stop looking at the intent, and think about what is actually being said, and how it might be used and abused.

Or, I could actually be playing in an environment where I don't have to cautiously scan every single person for all the myriad of little telltale signs that they might not be noob. I shouldn't have to hold fire on the off chance that someone with a fat, juicy cargo might be an actual new player.

That's the part you need to remember. EVE players are the worst at gaming the rules. This one will be no exception. You think Goonswarm can't figure out a way to use this in their favor?

And ok, sure, let's not draw the line. That way, we can petition everything. New player loses a ship doing something stupid? Petition it. Bought a plex, got greedy, and lost it to a scam? Petition it. Caught in the crossfire of, you know, anything that happens in lowsec? Frag it, petition that too.

Got an enemy FC that you need out of the way? Arrange for him to take out some "newbies", petition that, get him suspended.

Gm Petition Online sure sounds fun, huh?

Honestly? I hope you are right. Reading it, I sense that the same hand that gave us the "no lying" clause also was responsible for this. Because it's rather asinine.

Agreed, CCP is simply expanding the protected area for "new players" to the point where experienced players will exploit it for use with apies/alts/eyes and if you touch them it will be petitioned for warnings and or bans.

I am all for new players getting a chance but when the rules change to the point that older players can exploit this to their benefit then there is something wrong.

If you happen to be traveling within a jump of a newbie system, and you see someone flagged suspect, do you really check their history before shooting?

If you ship scan and see an officer fit ship AFK at a gate, you're not going to assemble a gank fleet to get a juicy killmail?

Seems like a bit overboard on the rule change.

if CCP actually plans on these rules applying to other systems rather than starter systems then some of you above show lack of a grasp on reality with your statements above on how this really would work.

Who goes around checking on every pilots age? Who wants to bother? If I am going to do something netharious then my victim is usually picked because:

A. He/she is in the vicinity
B. He/she is falling for it
C. He she is in the vicinity
D. he/she is falling for it

This thought that it gives new players a chance and helps retain the player base is a bad argument because new players are still not easily identified.

if CCP wants to have a 30 day cocoon then I say make them HOT PINK on the overview and in local chat... LOL.... then tell us not to touch them. Also do not allow them to join any corporations - Because OH NOES! What if they join a corporation and are wardec'd? etc etc etc...

Of course, you are all running around screaming the sky is falling. The clause is intended to cover those douches who lie in wait along the SoE mission arc route with various traps & claim 'It's not against the rules'. The ones who spam a million duel requests, those guys. If you are just swanning around your WH system and you pop anyone who comes in, you will be fine. If the only person you hunt is the newbie who spoke in local asking 'Hey cool, is this a WH' while ignoring 20 others that day, then you might have some questions asked.

To me, a newbie is someone still in the rookie chat. I'm of the opinion that they should be protected from the more egregious forms of tomfoolery we all get up to. Getting ganked, podkilled, scammed and such are part of the experience in EVE.

Now, stuff I'd "protect" newbies from would be like..attempts to intentionally deprive said newb of all of their assets, trying to get a noob to slot expensive implants/modules and such just to pop them, intentionally guiding them out to low into prepared gatecamps....and yes, much as I hate to say it, the infamous goonswarm recruitment scam.

Now, my definition of "protection" does not consist of punishing the perpetrator. For me, protection would be a one-time reimbursement of whatever they lost (within reason of course, anyone obviously losing a officer fit tengu stashed in a T1 indy is gaming) along with an extensive listing of different types of scams, and how to recognize them.

The best way to learn is by experiencing, and giving genuine new people a one-time mulligan to get some experience isn't THAT bad. Of course, there's potential "gaming the system" issues I haven't even considered, but, it's how I'd do things.



Please note, nothing in this post should be misconstrued as impersonating or falsely representing the following: Any other character on this account, any character on another account controlled by this player, characters on accounts owned by other players both real and imaginary, any group defined by game mechanics or ad hoc existing within or outside the EVE sphere of influence, GMs, Devs, CCP employees, CCP volunteers, CCP investors, CCP competition, future customers, current customers, lapsed customers, critics and fish.

+1 to CCP wanting to retain new players in game.

nuff said

So, the New order needs disclaimers for their posts now? *giggles*

Ah well... I think protecting new players more is a good thing... big surprise, hu? Some people should get it into their thick skulls that EVE is a game, and CCP tries to make money of it... it's no private little treehouse, where the player's rules apply.... and if they deemed in necessary, they could rule that the whole of highsec is off limits (not that I'd like that to happen), and NO player could do a thing about it.

Ask 10 non EVE players what they thing about it? Nine of them would tell you that they did take a look at it once in past 10 years, but didn't like it because it was a complicated mess, more work then game, "spreadsheets in space", or something else along the lines...

...personally, I find that a pity, concidering how much more this game has to offer.

As a side note: CCP also has still a ways to go to make the game more appealing for a bigger audience... DUST clearly wasn't the right way to do that.