These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#361 - 2012-06-15 14:13:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Mrr Woodcock
Man I'm glad that's fine with you Ruby, that makes everything OK with everyone I guess. Well Not me!

By the way good morning. Big smile

CCP it's perfectly clear to me this guy has all the answers. and good ones to boot. Please just simply do what he says, so he'll shut up. Please Please
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#362 - 2012-06-15 14:18:24 UTC
Mrr Woodcock wrote:
Man I'm glad that's fine with you Ruby, that makes everything OK with everyone I guess. Well Not me!


Then suggest an alternative that's clear to everyone and enforceable. Or Explain why surprising people with bans due to unclear rules is a positive thing.

"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
DeBingJos
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#363 - 2012-06-15 14:53:47 UTC  |  Edited by: DeBingJos
Tanya Powers wrote:
DeBingJos wrote:
Tanya Powers wrote:


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"


Nobody here is saying that it is ok to gank rookies in startersystems. The problem is in the fact that ccp tries to protect rookies in other systems than the startersystems without clearly defining what a rookie is.

Is this really that hard to comprehend? We don't want to gank rookies and in order to achieve that we need to know what a rookie is.

I'm really getting tired of being called a ganker. Is that the only argument you guys can come up with? This is not about griefing rookies, this argument is about defining clear rules in a game in order to improve gameplay for everyone, especially for the new players.

sigh....

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
#364 - 2012-06-15 15:18:21 UTC
Tanya Powers wrote:
No need to search false crappy excuses to use/abuse the lack of distinct rules to support a very false argument.
We know. That's why we're arguing for the removal of the those grey areas, which would eliminate all the crappy excuses. For some reason, people seem rather adamant that this is bad — presumably because they enjoy the amount to which they abuse the system, and because would hate to see those abuses removed.

That's why you're seeing all those false and crappy excuses such as “everyone knows” and “you're just a ganker”: they have no argument (not even a very false one), and have to go for the red herrings and ad hominems instead.
Haulie Berry
#365 - 2012-06-15 15:20:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Haulie Berry
I'm... I'm curious. Do people actually think flippin' Tippia spends large swaths of time preying on rookies because he just can't hack it in "real" PvP? Lol

Even as ad hominem circumstantial arguments go, that one is particularly stupid.
InternetSpaceship
State War Academy
Caldari State
#366 - 2012-06-15 16:00:03 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Mrr Woodcock wrote:
Man I'm glad that's fine with you Ruby, that makes everything OK with everyone I guess. Well Not me!


Then suggest an alternative that's clear to everyone and enforceable. Or Explain why surprising people with bans due to unclear rules is a positive thing.


Eh, just stop. He only wants Empire to be entirely risk free, so he's only going to say that you just shouldn't attack anyone in Empire, just in case. He wants the rules to be vague so no one can risk breaking them.

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.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#367 - 2012-06-15 16:02:59 UTC
Haulie Berry wrote:
I'm... I'm curious. Do people actually think flippin' Tippia spends large swaths if time preying on rookies because he just can't hack it in "real" PvP? Lol

Even as ad hominem circumstantial arguments go, that one is particularly stupid.


BoB hatin' rollin' deep.

"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
#368 - 2012-06-15 16:04:29 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
InternetSpaceship wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Mrr Woodcock wrote:
Man I'm glad that's fine with you Ruby, that makes everything OK with everyone I guess. Well Not me!


Then suggest an alternative that's clear to everyone and enforceable. Or Explain why surprising people with bans due to unclear rules is a positive thing.


Eh, just stop. He only wants Empire to be entirely risk free, so he's only going to say that you just shouldn't attack anyone in Empire, just in case. He wants the rules to be vague so no one can risk breaking them.


I'd stop, but GM Hormonia asked for suggestions for clear policy. Unfortunately, the signal to noise ratio on that front has been dropping precipitously.

As always, and just like in Mining whine threads, Poor Ruby gets yelled at for trying to help protect people who want protection.

"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
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#369 - 2012-06-15 16:26:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
I once baited a new player into aggressing me illegally in high security space. Not intentionally, but an outsider watching would not have been able to verify that. I did not receive any warning, likely because it happened right next to Dodixie, and not in a rookie system. Probably the GMs never noticed.

I was having a frigate duel with a guy and realized within the first few seconds that he was VERY new. I was trying to help him understand how to start the duel when he fired on me without first getting aggression. I thought the duel had started, so I began firing, only to have him suddenly pop when CONCORD shot him.

My point here is that anyone anywhere, even in rookie systems, may accidentally and unintentionally cause grief to a new player. No matter how strongly you believe it is cut and dry, it isn't. The rules should not only be clearly stated, but any changes in what is considered a bannable offense should be announced at startup so everyone can see it.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Haulie Berry
#370 - 2012-06-15 16:41:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Haulie Berry
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I once baited a new player into aggressing me illegally in high security space. Not intentionally, but an outsider watching would not have been able to verify that. I did not receive any warning, likely because it happened right next to Dodixie, and not in a rookie system. Probably the GMs never noticed.




Why do people keep saying things like this? The GM in this thread has explicitly said that, while they would prefer you would not mess with rookies in general, it is NOT against the rules in systems that are not "rookie" systems.

You didn't receive a warning because it wasn't against the rules.
Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#371 - 2012-06-15 16:49:49 UTC
Listen virtually every legal system in the world is full if things that are "Implied". It's everywhere, in virtually every system. I'm fine with this being a little grey. I actually like it like that, I have my reasons. I think many others agree. There are always people that disagree, there also virtually everywhere. I've had enough of this crap. If you can't grasp the concept, or disagree with the concept, that's your perspective, I respect that. Simple as that.
Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#372 - 2012-06-15 17:02:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Mrr Woodcock
OK, I never even implied I want things totally safe in high sec. That’s ridiculous, I would never want that.

I like the grayness of the way it is now, simply because it muddies the waters for the bottom feeders determined to kill only the new talent, period!

I would greatly support any new changes that bounces anyone that commits a high sec crime straight to low and null sec, not allowing them to return to high sec still they have repaired there security. Simply don’t allow them back in, until they repair this. My purpose of this is very, very simple. To help populate low and null, with more people for me personally to shoot. In my opinion many should be migrating there that are not, it’s a little quite out there.

Remember this is my opinion, and only my opinion. I'll be just fine with however it levels out. I'll deal with it, because frankly I hate being in high sec anyway. Very rare days when I'm there.

If you can’t grasp these simple things, feel free to shove it where ever you want.

PS not once did I mention banning anyone, for anything. Anyone happen to notice that?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#373 - 2012-06-15 17:04:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Mrr Woodcock wrote:
I actually like it like that, I have my reasons. I think many others agree.
Presumably, you want the rules to be vague so you can exploit them for protection you do not deserve.

The rest of us just wants the rules to protect rookies. Why do you feel the need to hide behind them?

Mrr Woodcock wrote:
OK, I never even implied I want things totally safe in high sec. That’s ridiculous, I would never want that.

[…]

I would greatly support any new changes that bounces anyone that commits a high sec crime straight to low and null sec, not allowing them to return to high sec still they have repaired there security.
Wow. Contradict yourself much? Roll

Haulie Berry wrote:
Why do people keep saying things like this? The GM in this thread has explicitly said that, while they would prefer you would not mess with rookies in general, it is NOT against the rules in systems that are not "rookie" systems.
Because they've said in other places, that it might not be ok — the the rookie system rule might apply outside of rookie systems. This creates maximum ambiguity for maximum confusion and maximum unenforceability: you are not allowed to attack a group of people (that can't be defined) in some set of systems (that can't be defined), except occasionally you might be (according to rules of judgement that can't be defined).

What he's describing is the logical conclusion of the “don't mess with rookies” rule. Yes, reasonably, he should have no problems with that incident, but as this thread has shown “reasonably” isn't a universal constant… So the whole idea of building a rule around that measure of “reasonable” is flawed to the core, and yet it's what people are arguing in favour of.
Sasha Deathcabin Yvormes
The Mistwraith
#374 - 2012-06-15 17:09:27 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.


There you go, a new concept of gameplay....


NOOBGEDDON!!!!

how can starter systems be immune to goongankage?
After all, if they are mining, they are not playing the game correctly.
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
#375 - 2012-06-15 17:16:13 UTC
Holy Mother of Tim Burton, are you people still trying to define a rookie using stupidly extreme scenario's? Excuse me while I go shed a tear for the human race.

Do you smell what the Lock's cooking?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#376 - 2012-06-15 17:24:07 UTC
THE L0CK wrote:
Holy Mother of Tim Burton, are you people still trying to define a rookie using stupidly extreme scenario's?
No. We're still trying to make people who say that it can't be defined understand that this means the rule is pretty useless, what with the main subject of it being undefined and all…
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
#377 - 2012-06-15 17:28:50 UTC
Tippia wrote:
THE L0CK wrote:
Holy Mother of Tim Burton, are you people still trying to define a rookie using stupidly extreme scenario's?
No. We're still trying to make people who say that it can't be defined understand that this means the rule is pretty useless, what with the main subject of it being undefined and all…



So you still trying to define what a rookie is using stupidly extreme scenario's to break something further that the GM lady asked us to help fix.

Do you smell what the Lock's cooking?
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#378 - 2012-06-15 17:32:58 UTC
So when was the last GM correspondence in this thread?

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#379 - 2012-06-15 17:34:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
THE L0CK wrote:
So you still trying to define what a rookie is using stupidly extreme scenario's to break something further that the GM lady asked us to help fix.
No. We're trying to fix the stupid scenario that arises from the rule the GMs are thinking about applying, and we're showing that the stupid scenario is a direct result of the inability to define what a rookie is.

We're doing exactly what the GMs asked us for. We are also not trying to define what a rookie is — we're asking those who prefer the rule that requires a definition of rookie to do that. They can't. That means the rule is no good.

Simple enough, or do you want to keep wilfully misunderstanding what “no” means?
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#380 - 2012-06-15 17:37:05 UTC
Well, I found the last meaningful GM correspondence


GM Homonoia wrote:
Ok, this seems to be getting out of hand and our rulings are pulled out of context. So let me state this in the most simple terms possible.

1. New PLAYERS are protected by CCP in the systems listed here: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_Systems
2. No one is protected in systems outside of this list.
3. None but new PLAYERS are protected by CCP in any way.
4. If new PLAYERS keep getting harassed the list of systems may be expanded.
5. Players cannot see which characters are new PLAYERS and which are old players with new CHARACTERS; game masters CAN see this and we act accordingly.
6. It is impossible to define what a new PLAYER is in a way that is comprehensible, to the point and without loop holes, in addition to our players able to apply these rules to their fellow players around them. This means that we will not provide a hard definition to our player base, however game masters internally can apply these rules consistently and without bias.
7. In general do NOT mess around with new PLAYERS; anyone else is fair game.

The above guidelines are not up for discussion and they will not be further clarified. If you need further clarification you are probably doing something you should not be doing.


The bit I highlighted seems to be the important part............

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.