These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CCP - Rookie System Rules Clarification

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#221 - 2012-06-14 20:04:04 UTC
GM Homonoia wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

b) continue short list of Exceptions, like initiating a suicide gank, or whatever. Take these from the publicly viewable information used in your in house Newbie definition


That right there is the problem. We can probably write a list the size of a dictionary. So we will stick to case by case basis. The only issue left is the wording of the evelopedia page. I will see if I can raise the discussion on that internally, but a new wording may take a while.


The exceptions only raise the specificity rate. We, as players, don't need specificity, we need sensitivity, which means we need an age cutoff. Pick the most glaring groups of young players in newbie systems that you don't want protected.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#222 - 2012-06-14 20:07:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Cutter Isaacson
RubyPorto wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

b) continue short list of Exceptions, like initiating a suicide gank, or whatever. Take these from the publicly viewable information used in your in house Newbie definition


That right there is the problem. We can probably write a list the size of a dictionary. So we will stick to case by case basis. The only issue left is the wording of the evelopedia page. I will see if I can raise the discussion on that internally, but a new wording may take a while.


The exceptions only raise the specificity rate. We, as players, don't need specificity, we need sensitivity, which means we need an age cutoff. Pick the most glaring groups of young players in newbie systems that you don't want protected.


And what about the guy who gets a trial account, likes the game but only gets to play for maybe 4 days out of his entire trial? So he gets a full account and maybe gets time to go on and play properly on the one day off he gets a week, after 5 or 6 weeks he finally starts to get the hang of things.

Now compare him to someone who doesn't work, maybe a schoolkid who can play every night, or someone who is retired, they might get on every single day, and after 2 or 3 weeks they are fairly adept.

Do you see the problem now of having a fixed date that defines a rookie?


EDIT: I may have accidentally quoted the wrong person there, sorry Ruby, but I can't be arsed to change it now, lol.

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#223 - 2012-06-14 20:09:05 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:


Coding it leads to abuse of the newbie protections (unless the code is only activated in the newbie system, in which case it's a lot of effort for little benefit), and GM Hormonia has indicated that she has no access to Dev time for the foreseeable future.


It's not really abusable if the protection can be broken by your own actions. If they're taking rookie protection beyond starter systems like they've stated then they're likely accounting for whatever its that the player was doing outside that system.

Say a new player leaves the system to purchase something in another system that wasn't available or affordable in the starting system. They undock and get blown up. Odds are you just violated the rule.

If that same rookie flew to another system and loaded their hold with a few million worth of BPO's, something tells me a GM would see that and you wouldn't have violated any rule.

Once they start work on the NPE again, that can be taken out of the GM and players hands and coded directly in so that there is no confusion. Put a 100k worth of ammo in your hold (something I actually had to do with my alt because the ammo I wanted wasn't available in the rookie system and I saw an opportunity along with a need) and you're fine, put 1m in BPO's in that same hold and a message pops up that if you undock with that cargo you forefit your protection.

Not saying do it now, but in the future that GM man power can be convered to code and the GM's can focus man power on other things.
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#224 - 2012-06-14 20:10:36 UTC
Makkal Hanaya wrote:


[ snippage for brevity ]

I think the problem is that for some members of the forum, this just popped up on their radar, while the GMs have probably dealt with 100+ instances of people 'messing with rookies' and have come to the sort of informal standard that groups create.

[ more snippage ]


Fair points.

On the other hand, getting to grips with a set of rules, which can be known by the players and weed out the rules lawyering, or which can be coded, should mean that the GMs have fewer case of 'HELP! Mean ppls blow me up!" to handle. Which can only be a good thing.

I stand by the landmine description, though. Even assuming it's 98% of the population who don't care - that still leaves a pretty large number - Lotta folks play EVE. Even small fractions mean large numbers.

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc
Ana Vyr
Vyral Technologies
#225 - 2012-06-14 20:17:56 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. They are still trying to figure out how to read the overview and how to right click; messing with them at that point in their career is something for bullies who have something to compensate for and only dare to pick on the smallest, weakest boy in kindergarten.

its not a newbie if its in a mining barge right


Miners should not be able to go strip mine those systems either, IMO, and I'm a miner. Let's just stay out of the rookie systems, period unless we belong there.
Greg Valanti
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#226 - 2012-06-14 20:19:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Greg Valanti
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Well, this got out of hand pretty quickly.

I am forced to wonder why this has become such a massive issue, most of the people in this thread screaming "We need clarification about what a Rookie is" can't really be all that bothered about it, if they were there would have been dozens of threads posted every week on here.

Now all of a sudden these "concerned citizens" pop out of the woodwork like flies to poop, running around and declaring how unsatisfactory the whole mess is and how they demand this that and the other. Where have most of you been for the entire time this was such a gigantic problem eh? Oh that's right, either off popping rookies yourselves, or just not actually giving a damn until the time comes when you can make yourselves out to be the epitome of virtue, and wave your little "Look at me, I'm standing up for the little guy" banners.

99% of you didn't give a damn about this issue before, why start now, just to make yourselves look like big girls and boys on the internet? The only thing that seems to have really changed is that CCP finally got tired of losing subs to ignorant little mentally challenged miscreants and had to try and put a stop to it.

Pathetic.


Thanks for your valuable contribution to the subject at hand.

The debate is not (or rather should not be, as this is not how it originated) about the morality of killing rookies or the mechanics of griefing in rookie systems.

The core issue is the sudden materialization and enforcement of vague or previously nonexistent rules, and subsequent conflicting statements from GMs. For a long time you simply could not can bait in rookie systems. Then you could not bait in career agent systems. Then you couldn't can flip there either. Then it became illegal to simply just steal cans and defend yourself if attacked. The it turned into veterans cannot attack rookies there period. Recently it is veterans cannot attack rookies even in SOE systems. And now it has evolved into ROOKIES cannot attack veterans or other rookies there without warning.

If the GMs/CCP do not want people behaving in a certain matter, it needs to be clearly defined and publicly viewable rather than continued bans/warnings without fair opportunity for players to know they are violating these policies in the first place.
None ofthe Above
#227 - 2012-06-14 20:26:56 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Makkal Hanaya wrote:
Ginseng Jita wrote:
People with older accounts that create an alt on an existing account would not be flagged as rookies.

I had a trial account a year and a half ago, but only turned it into a regular account 13 days ago. Despite my account being over a year old, I have less than a month of playtime.

I wouldn't be surprised if a number of new players are those who've upgraded trials they've had for a while.


You remembered your login details after a year and a half? I have a trail of failed trial accounts, but I always started fresh when I tried again (mainly because I forgot the login details, but partly because I needed the trial to decide).


Some people are quite fastidious about keeping their login data. There are tools made to do this securely.

I don't find this implausible at all.

Its not to say that there aren't a significant populations of vets hanging out in Rookie systems for good or ill.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#228 - 2012-06-14 20:28:35 UTC
Cutter, nice reply +1

Greg Valanti, I was merely trying to suggest you might consider moving your band to areas and foes that are more worthy of you interests. That way you could rid yourself of even the possibly of getting caught up in all this confusion. Not going to waist another word on you, as I can see honestly, I don't apply.

I'm glad CCP is supporting the actual new player. Just seems natural to me. Most of the squackers are just trying to ensure that they have as many new defenseless players to kill as possible. This pressing the need to define everything, is so they can see clearly when they cross the line, to define that line to the most approachable point possible.

Bottom line is I really like the GM's approach, Well just handle it on a case by case basis. I support it 100%
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#229 - 2012-06-14 20:34:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
GM Homonoia wrote:
Alright, instead of arguing this any further. Here one for you guys. I am sure that most of you understand our goals, now assuming you had ZERO development time, how would YOU word a policy that achieves these goals?
Go back to the way everyone (including some of you guys, going by old petition quotes) thought it worked:

In the starter and carreer agent systems, all forms of aggression games and unprovoked attacks are prohibited. Outside of the starter systems, anything goes. That is the policy. It means the distinction between rookie and vet becomes completely irrelevant, and it removes the ability to use rookie-like characters to hide behind the fear of the banhammer while still giving the rookies a safe zone to play in.

The game-design part is to punch the NPE team in the soul until they give rookie accounts a big stonking “Here There Be Dragons” popup the first time they try to activate the gate out of those systems and until they create a mission where the theft mechanics are explained. If certain forms of rookie-griefing are rampant (e.g. the SOE arc), then tell the PvE group to adjust those missions to no longer feature the kinds of content that might trick the rookies — e.g. no required lootable items. This is not a policy — it's more along the lines of entertainment (for you, not being on the receiving end of said soul-punching).

The solution isn't arbitrary, opaque, unobtainable, and potentially harsh rules with a gillion different (equally arbitrary, opaque and unknowable) edge cases referring to (occasionally incorrectly named) specific tactics (that the newbies won't know about or understand, and which the griefers will modify to work in a different way). The solution is a education — for everyone — about an easily available and categorically true rule set.
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#230 - 2012-06-14 20:37:48 UTC
Adriel Malakai wrote:
Is there anyway that you can change the Rookie System page so that the warning states that can-baiting is considered griefing in these systems, not can-flipping, as you have mentioned in both related threads? As it stands, the wiki page is in direct conflict with your statements. If the problem is that there is no page describing can-baiting to link to, I will be more than happy to create/write the page and fully explain all of the intricacies of it.

EDIT: I also want to thank you for having the patience to read through a second thread and putting together a full reply to this. I greatly appreciate your time and effort in clarifying things - it's been a great help.


The Can Baiting page has been created and filled out. Now all that's needed is to get the wiki page regarding rookie systems updated to properly reflect the rules.

Thanks again for your responses in this thread GM Harmonoia. I know GD can be a frustrating place, considering the residents.
DeBingJos
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#231 - 2012-06-14 20:41:04 UTC
Tippia wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
Alright, instead of arguing this any further. Here one for you guys. I am sure that most of you understand our goals, now assuming you had ZERO development time, how would YOU word a policy that achieves these goals?
Go back to the way everyone (including some of you guys, going by old petition quotes) thought it worked:

In the starter and carreer agent systems, all forms of aggression games and unprovoked attacks are prohibited. Outside of the starter systems, anything goes. That is the policy. It means the distinction between rookie and vet becomes completely irrelevant, and it removes the ability to use rookie-like characters to hide behind the fear of the banhammer while still giving the rookies a safe zone to play in.

The game-design part is to punch the NPE team in the soul until they give rookie accounts a big stonking “Here There Be Dragons” popup the first time they try to activate the gate out of those systems and until they create a mission where the theft mechanics are explained. If certain forms of rookie-griefing are rampant (e.g. the SOE arc), then tell the PvE group to adjust those missions to no longer feature the kinds of content that might trick the rookies — e.g. no required lootable items. This is not a policy — it's more along the lines of entertainment (for you, not being on the receiving end of said soul-punching).

The solution isn't arbitrary, opaque, unobtainable, and potentially harsh rules with a gillion different (equally arbitrary, opaque and unknowable) edge cases referring to (occasionally incorrectly named) specific tactics (that the newbies won't know about or understand, and which the griefers will modify to work in a different way). The solution is a education — for everyone — about an easily available and categorically true rule set.

1000x this

Ungi maðurinn þekkir reglurnar, en gamli maðurinn þekkir undantekningarnar. The young man knows the rules, but the old man knows the exceptions.

Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#232 - 2012-06-14 20:43:00 UTC
Tippia wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
Alright, instead of arguing this any further. Here one for you guys. I am sure that most of you understand our goals, now assuming you had ZERO development time, how would YOU word a policy that achieves these goals?
Go back to the way everyone (including some of you guys, going by old petition quotes) thought it worked:

In the starter and carreer agent systems, all forms of aggression games and unprovoked attacks are prohibited. Outside of the starter systems, anything goes. That is the policy. It means the distinction between rookie and vet becomes completely irrelevant, and it removes the ability to use rookie-like characters to hide behind the fear of the banhammer while still giving the rookies a safe zone to play in.

The game-design part is to punch the NPE team in the soul until they give rookie accounts a big stonking “Here There Be Dragons” popup the first time they try to activate the gate out of those systems and until they create a mission where the theft mechanics are explained. If certain forms of rookie-griefing are rampant (e.g. the SOE arc), then tell the PvE group to adjust those missions to no longer feature the kinds of content that might trick the rookies — e.g. no required lootable items. This is not a policy — it's more along the lines of entertainment (for you, not being on the receiving end of said soul-punching).

The solution isn't arbitrary, opaque, unobtainable, and potentially harsh rules with a gillion different (equally arbitrary, opaque and unknowable) edge cases referring to (occasionally incorrectly named) specific tactics (that the newbies won't know about or understand, and which the griefers will modify to work in a different way). The solution is a education — for everyone — about an easily available and categorically true rule set.


This is spot on.
Marcus Caspius
#233 - 2012-06-14 20:49:31 UTC
GM Homonoia wrote:
I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. They are still trying to figure out how to read the overview and how to right click; messing with them at that point in their career is something for bullies who have something to compensate for and only dare to pick on the smallest, weakest boy in kindergarten.


Wow, CCP actually oppose bullying... Funny how some of the obvious bully game mechanics are not addressed:

F A I L


Grammatical error and spelling mistakes are included for your entertainment!
Ris Dnalor
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#234 - 2012-06-14 20:55:18 UTC
GM Homonoia wrote:
I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. They are still trying to figure out how to read the overview and how to right click; messing with them at that point in their career is something for bullies who have something to compensate for and only dare to pick on the smallest, weakest boy in kindergarten.



so when I fly into a system, will it inform me that it's a rookie system, or am I just supposed to know?

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961

EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody

  • Qolde
Makkal Hanaya
Revenent Defence Corperation
#235 - 2012-06-14 21:06:03 UTC
Ris Dnalor wrote:

so when I fly into a system, will it inform me that it's a rookie system, or am I just supposed to know?

Rookie systems.

I suspect you're supposed to know.

Render unto Khanid the things which are Khanid's; and unto God the things that are God's.
Iskawa Zebrut
Smoke to Train - Train to Smoke
#236 - 2012-06-14 21:12:10 UTC
I don't really understand this. EVE is marketed out (and entirely known) as an incredibly hostile, cut-throat sandbox where just about anything is permitted. If someone will quit after getting **** on in the early game, they are magnitudes more likely to quit after getting **** on later when they have more to lose. I suppose it's all about getting their money before they realize this isn't the game for them.

On a similar vein, a new player is slapped in the face with a warning whenever they try to do something that will drop them into a PvP situation. Add another when they try to jettison things, and that should be all that needs to be done. Aside from preventing people ill-suited to EVE quitting before the trial period is over so they have a chance to open their wallets, there's no good justification for wasting GM time on enforcing rules like this within this type of game.

To those who will inevitably flame me for just wanting to kill rookies, I don't even have any direct contact with them aside from perhaps spotting one when going shopping in Jita. Naturally, you probably didn't even read this last paragraph. You've probably already vomited your rage all over the place like some kind of ******.
DeBingJos
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#237 - 2012-06-14 21:13:50 UTC
Ris Dnalor wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. They are still trying to figure out how to read the overview and how to right click; messing with them at that point in their career is something for bullies who have something to compensate for and only dare to pick on the smallest, weakest boy in kindergarten.



so when I fly into a system, will it inform me that it's a rookie system, or am I just supposed to know?


I suggest we give the rookiesystems a color. The incursion systems have a green color, the rookiesystem should be pink.

Ungi maðurinn þekkir reglurnar, en gamli maðurinn þekkir undantekningarnar. The young man knows the rules, but the old man knows the exceptions.

Makkal Hanaya
Revenent Defence Corperation
#238 - 2012-06-14 21:26:35 UTC
Iskawa Zebrut wrote:
I don't really understand this. EVE is marketed out (and entirely known) as an incredibly hostile, cut-throat sandbox where just about anything is permitted. If someone will quit after getting **** on in the early game, they are magnitudes more likely to quit after getting **** on later when they have more to lose. I suppose it's all about getting their money before they realize this isn't the game for them.

I suspect we're getting closer to the heart of the disagreement.

Climbing Mount Everest is a harsh, brutal experience. Being the smallest guy in the prison shower room is also harsh and brutal. If your first days in EVE lead you to believe it's like Mount Everest, you're likely to continue for a while. If your first days make you feel like the shower room *****, you'll likely quit.

Render unto Khanid the things which are Khanid's; and unto God the things that are God's.
Grinder2210
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#239 - 2012-06-14 21:40:16 UTC
Tippia wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
Alright, instead of arguing this any further. Here one for you guys. I am sure that most of you understand our goals, now assuming you had ZERO development time, how would YOU word a policy that achieves these goals?
Go back to the way everyone (including some of you guys, going by old petition quotes) thought it worked:

In the starter and carreer agent systems, all forms of aggression games and unprovoked attacks are prohibited. Outside of the starter systems, anything goes. That is the policy. It means the distinction between rookie and vet becomes completely irrelevant, and it removes the ability to use rookie-like characters to hide behind the fear of the banhammer while still giving the rookies a safe zone to play in.

The game-design part is to punch the NPE team in the soul until they give rookie accounts a big stonking “Here There Be Dragons” popup the first time they try to activate the gate out of those systems and until they create a mission where the theft mechanics are explained. If certain forms of rookie-griefing are rampant (e.g. the SOE arc), then tell the PvE group to adjust those missions to no longer feature the kinds of content that might trick the rookies — e.g. no required lootable items. This is not a policy — it's more along the lines of entertainment (for you, not being on the receiving end of said soul-punching).

The solution isn't arbitrary, opaque, unobtainable, and potentially harsh rules with a gillion different (equally arbitrary, opaque and unknowable) edge cases referring to (occasionally incorrectly named) specific tactics (that the newbies won't know about or understand, and which the griefers will modify to work in a different way). The solution is a education — for everyone — about an easily available and categorically true rule set.



On the money
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
#240 - 2012-06-14 21:53:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Terranid Meester
If you want rookie players to have a safe environment to practise eve online, then why not send them to Sisi or some other server where there is no loss and there they can practise all they want. I mean its not hard to read up on eve online and/or learn about sisi.

Then when they are ready, they can use their new found skills in the real meat of tranquility?