These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Desert Ice78
Gryphons of the Western Wind
#341 - 2012-06-15 10:23:42 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Desert Ice78 wrote:

Crawl out from under your rock worm, grow a pair, find a low-sec gate and have all your worries put to rest.


'Cause WhySo's the bastion of elite PvP.

Would you enjoy it if you were to, on occasion, receive a GM warning or Ban because of your target selection? And have no useful information with which to avoid said warning or ban because the protected target class is ill-defined.


I can shoot whoever I want, whenever I want.

RubyPorto wrote:

Again, if you think it's easy to define rookie, define it.


Is the security of the system I'm currently located in less then 0.5? If yes, I'm golden. Simples.

I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg

CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused.
InternetSpaceship
State War Academy
Caldari State
#342 - 2012-06-15 10:55:29 UTC  |  Edited by: InternetSpaceship
Desert Ice78 wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Desert Ice78 wrote:

Crawl out from under your rock worm, grow a pair, find a low-sec gate and have all your worries put to rest.


'Cause WhySo's the bastion of elite PvP.

Would you enjoy it if you were to, on occasion, receive a GM warning or Ban because of your target selection? And have no useful information with which to avoid said warning or ban because the protected target class is ill-defined.


I can shoot whoever I want, whenever I want.

RubyPorto wrote:

Again, if you think it's easy to define rookie, define it.


Is the security of the system I'm currently located in less then 0.5? If yes, I'm golden. Simples.


There it is again. No pvp in hisec, just thinly veiled. This is a pvp game, but everyone is so scared of it. You guys really should be playing WoW if nonconsensual pvp scares you so much.

Official Recruiter for GoonSwarm Corporation.

If you paid isk to get into GoonSwarm, you were probably scammed.  If you had the foresight to save the name of your scammer, let me know and I'll do what I can to help you.
DeBingJos
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#343 - 2012-06-15 12:24:34 UTC
Desert Ice78 wrote:

Is the security of the system I'm currently located in less then 0.5? If yes, I'm golden. Simples.


Since when is highsec supposed to be safe? Should I start looking for another game, because this is not EVE anymore?

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

Desert Ice78
Gryphons of the Western Wind
#344 - 2012-06-15 12:41:01 UTC
DeBingJos wrote:
Desert Ice78 wrote:

Is the security of the system I'm currently located in less then 0.5? If yes, I'm golden. Simples.


Since when is highsec supposed to be safe? Should I start looking for another game, because this is not EVE anymore?


Since when is ganking miners, industrials and can-baiting noobies ment to be classed as pvp?

Only in hi-sec.

Pathetic as always.

I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg

CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused.
DeBingJos
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#345 - 2012-06-15 12:51:54 UTC
Desert Ice78 wrote:
DeBingJos wrote:
Desert Ice78 wrote:

Is the security of the system I'm currently located in less then 0.5? If yes, I'm golden. Simples.


Since when is highsec supposed to be safe? Should I start looking for another game, because this is not EVE anymore?


Since when is ganking miners, industrials and can-baiting noobies ment to be classed as pvp?

Only in hi-sec.

Pathetic as always.


Lets see: miner = Player ... versus ... ganker = Player, sounds like pvp to me. Is it fair, no, is it pvp, yes.

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

Luis Graca
#346 - 2012-06-15 12:54:46 UTC
No trolling, and yes this is a actually question

In a sandbox game isn't there a rule saying something kinda like "If there no rules you can do it" ?
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#347 - 2012-06-15 12:59:08 UTC
DeBingJos wrote:
Desert Ice78 wrote:

Is the security of the system I'm currently located in less then 0.5? If yes, I'm golden. Simples.


Since when is highsec supposed to be safe? Should I start looking for another game, because this is not EVE anymore?



It has always been Eve and is still now, you just play the wrong part of it. Why are you so afraid of moving to low/null?
Are you afraid of loosing ships?

Lol
Riedle
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#348 - 2012-06-15 13:02:47 UTC
Ginseng Jita wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

Since nothing of much economic value happens in rookie systems, the only thing this really applies to is something like "are Hulks in rookie systems 'rookies'?"


Dear lord... Hulks are advanced T2 ships. I am not going to dignify this with a real answer.


That is your job though, to answer questions. By your own words you refuse to define what constitutes a new player, so we as players cannot second guess what you define is a new player - even if said player is in a Hulk.



You are 'special' aren't you?
DeBingJos
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#349 - 2012-06-15 13:06:17 UTC
Tanya Powers wrote:
DeBingJos wrote:
Desert Ice78 wrote:

Is the security of the system I'm currently located in less then 0.5? If yes, I'm golden. Simples.


Since when is highsec supposed to be safe? Should I start looking for another game, because this is not EVE anymore?



It has always been Eve and is still now, you just play the wrong part of it. Why are you so afraid of moving to low/null?
Are you afraid of loosing ships?

Lol


Feel free to check my killboard. I lose a lot of ships in lowsec. :)

I just think highsec should not be totally safe. Danger is one of the core concepts of the game.

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

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#350 - 2012-06-15 13:09:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Mrr Woodcock wrote:
InternetSpaceship wrote:
Just look at goonswarm. Our day old rookies are tackling supercapitals 30 minutes after joining.
LMFAO, really? You seriously suggesting these guys are rookies? Honestly?
So we're back to that question: what precludes them from being rookies?
Riedle
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#351 - 2012-06-15 13:11:32 UTC
Anyone else experiencing obtuseness overload? Should be a warning on the thread title.

that is all
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#352 - 2012-06-15 13:30:11 UTC
Mrr Woodcock wrote:
You know you must feel very strongly about this. I'm impressed, I almost think your some kind of lawyer. Wow. You know I'm very impressed at how hard your trying.

Let me try this just one more time, just leave the rookies alone.

Now just so there isn't any confusion, I'm actually going to define Rookie for you. You've been wanting for it all day, we've been implying what it is all day. I told my self I wasn't going to give you the satisfaction, but here it is.

Rookie:

An inexperienced person; a novice.

Ok, now please go on, and tell us all why that isn't good enough. It's good enough for Websters, and basically the whole English speaking world. But I just have a feeling, lol. It's not good enough for you.


That is a vague and circular definition useless for protecting a class. Take a look at a law, any law, and you'll notice that terms are defined rather carefully. Law and rules are not written in natural language because they need to be precise if they are to do what they are intended.

"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
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#353 - 2012-06-15 13:31:27 UTC
Mrr Woodcock wrote:
InternetSpaceship wrote:
[quote=Kara Books]

Just look at goonswarm. Our day old rookies are tackling supercapitals 30 minutes after joining.


LMFAO, really? You seriously suggesting these guys are rookies? Honestly?




I think that anyone with less than 24hrs of game experience is probably a rookie, yes. Not a member of the class we're trying to protect, but certainly covered by your natural language definition.

"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
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#354 - 2012-06-15 13:32:29 UTC
Kara Books wrote:
InternetSpaceship wrote:
Kara Books wrote:
Lets look at it from a whole different perspective, People who pray on 1 day old players, WISH have or may do this in real life, Im talking about Killers rapists bad people who go after kids... These people are BAD and they REALLY do exist!, pretty much any one who has family, loves some one or has kids understands, these individuals need to be kept away from the temporally defenseless who just started exploring the basics of the new world around them.

1.
Yes this is eve online, this is a world with no rules, but Chasing away new players makes it worse for you, in fact, why fight the wave, join it, help these new players leave the systems and stay with eve for years to come.

2.
Instead of forcing people to leave, make new friends, go with the wave, help this game grow from 50K active online weekends to 500K.

That concludes my personal Opinion on the matter.


That's all fine, and I'm all for protecting rookies while they figure out the game.

But this is still a pvp game, and I don't want to get banned for attacking someone still considered a rookie when there isn't even a clear definition of what a rookie is. Just look at goonswarm. Our day old rookies are tackling supercapitals 30 minutes after joining. It really would be nice to have a clear definition of who we can and can't attack. I agree that in most situations, it'll be pretty obvious, but there will be situations where it really isn't.


Indeed, I can see your point, but a supercap isnt suposto be involved in a hostile engagement in highsec, Newbie protected system of all things.
Newbie+Newb system = the only place these rules should apply.

Perhaps CCP should rename these systems, like some kind of super highsec training grounds or something along those lines.

People entering or leaving the training grounds should get a warning, and some fast facts/rules etc.


That's what I suggested 5 pages ago before Woodcock and friends insisted that rookie needs no definition.

"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
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#355 - 2012-06-15 13:34:13 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Mara Rinn wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
The Rookie Protection rule says it's illegal to mess with Rookies* in starter systems**.

*intentionally vaguely defined.
**Needs to be defined.


The protection from loopholes is in the "mess with Rookies" part. The protection from confusion is in the definition of "starter system"


Fixed that for you.


The current rule is that you cannot mess with Rookies in starter systems. Both parts of the protected class definition must be met to be eligible for protection. You can mess with Non-Rookies in starter systems. You can mess with rookies Outside starter systems.
You've only fixed my statement if you assume that the rule change that I suggested 5 pages ago has been put in place.

"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
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#356 - 2012-06-15 13:39:33 UTC
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Mrr Woodcock wrote:
You know I understand you need your baby's to bash. So now were trying to decide, can't bash a 1 or 2 week old in the head with a base ball bat, but we need to make it clear that 6 month old baby's are ok for head bashing. Then it's oh my goodness, we can't do that to any baby's, but 2 year old's are ok to head bash. I'm simply not going to give this to you, no matter what
stupid logic you keep pitching. What I'm certain of though, is there will still be easy targets for you to bash, you can rest assured of that. Don't Panic, they will still be there.


You want to protect a class, define it. You've skipped right over what Tippia and I have said and gone right to impugning our motives.

Here's my set of premises.
1) EvE is a place that allows non-consensual PvP without restrictions
2) Because newbies are new, they should be protected
3) 2 should not compromise 1

This means that it must be made crystal clear WHO is protected and WHERE. The WHAT that they are protected from can be somewhat vague.

Say I want to protect whatsits from harm. You have no idea what a whatsit is, so you go and shoot something. Would it be fair if I told you after you shot the thing that it was a whatsit and now you must be punished for shooting the protected whatsit?


You have one solid known for a fact piece of the puzzle. They are only protected in the starter systems. So if I were you I would just make that short list of systems off limits for any kind of PvP agression. Problem fixed. Of course any and every single law ever written was made to be broken. And all the people posting problems with this are those that so want to test this limit.
Well then by all means test the limits and find out first hand where they are then report back. This is not rocket science people.
EVE is a huge place. Are the people posting here really not going to have any fun because a few systems are off limits?
If that is the case you might as well rage quit right now.


That's what I suggested 5 pages ago. But CCP needs to make rules clear in order to enforce them in a consistent manner. If they would like to ban all agression in Rookie systems, THATS FINE.

There would be downsides to that approach, people getting banned for ganking Hulks* in those systems, etc, but that's what you get for defining a protected class broadly.

*If someone says "Hulk's not a Rookie" again, they need to define rookie in a way that's more specific but still as sensitive.

"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
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#357 - 2012-06-15 13:39:43 UTC
DeBingJos wrote:
Tanya Powers wrote:
DeBingJos wrote:
Desert Ice78 wrote:

Is the security of the system I'm currently located in less then 0.5? If yes, I'm golden. Simples.


Since when is highsec supposed to be safe? Should I start looking for another game, because this is not EVE anymore?



It has always been Eve and is still now, you just play the wrong part of it. Why are you so afraid of moving to low/null?
Are you afraid of loosing ships?

Lol


Feel free to check my killboard. I lose a lot of ships in lowsec. :)

I just think highsec should not be totally safe. Danger is one of the core concepts of the game.


And it is not.

See wardec/Faction warfare stats to figure it out.

No need to search false crappy excuses to use/abuse the lack of distinct rules to support a very false argument.
Now, if you're talking about NPC toons you should always be able to gank them, but you should also have to consider your loss vs profit instead of a simple brainless "high sec not safe, me shoots because defenceless ship not fight back, mwahahah me better at eve"
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#358 - 2012-06-15 13:42:30 UTC
Ooh, I missed that one!
Mrr Woodcock wrote:
Now just so there isn't any confusion, I'm actually going to define Rookie for you. You've been wanting for it all day, we've been implying what it is all day. I told my self I wasn't going to give you the satisfaction, but here it is.

Rookie:

                  An inexperienced person; a novice.

Ok, now please go on, and tell us all why that isn't good enough.
Because it doesn't change the fundamental problem of defining who does and who doesn't belong to the group — it just replaces the word with a synonym without adding any specificity (which is what we're after). “Don't mess with inexperienced persons” and “don't mess with novices” are just as unhelpful as “don't mess with rookies” (ok, it's not entirely unhelpful — that ‘persons’ bit means we can conclude that your parakeet isn't a rookie).

What is a novice? What counts as inexperienced?

It doesn't tell us whether or not we can shoot that rookie with the 25bn tech load…
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#359 - 2012-06-15 13:42:36 UTC
Desert Ice78 wrote:
DeBingJos wrote:
Desert Ice78 wrote:

Is the security of the system I'm currently located in less then 0.5? If yes, I'm golden. Simples.


Since when is highsec supposed to be safe? Should I start looking for another game, because this is not EVE anymore?


Since when is ganking miners, industrials and can-baiting noobies ment to be classed as pvp?

Only in hi-sec.

Pathetic as always.


A Ganker is a Player.
A Miner is a Player.

Player... VS... Player.

You may not like that form, and that's perfectly fine. But it's valid gameplay.

"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
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#360 - 2012-06-15 13:46:07 UTC
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:

The GM's will rule on each case based upon each individual merits. No blanket rule. They already said as much.
So yes their is risk in the starter systems only this time the rookies hold the cards. So it is sort of a reverse risk.
IE. The starter systems may not be the safe haven to mine in because the rookies can grief you. So basically the starter systems are only safe if you are a rookie.


Since you say that shooting Non-Rookies is all right in Rookie systems, Define "Rookie" in a way that allows people to avoid shooting them.

Quote:

But again I say why take the chance anyway just stay clear. Problem solved.


Again, I say if the GMs want to ban ALL agression in rookie systems, that's fine.

"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