These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#521 - 2012-06-16 15:44:21 UTC
Corina Jarr wrote:
Rhedea wrote:
Noobs are those still on the rookie channel, and should have icon to show it. Like a round icon ( ) instead of the normal [ ]
Like leaner plates (L) Lol
Anyway as long as they stay in High Sec they should be kinda safe. A sec hit of -10 for shooting a ( ) in High Sec. A Ban for shooting in a starting system. No if and or buts.


Hmm, decent. It means that alts on the same account will not be protected (an issue with any other method as we the player cannot determine who is a new account and who is just a new character).
Only issue is that alt accounts of old players can be protected in this way.


On a side note, it would be hilarious to find a vet abusing the rookie rules by continually taking from cans in Arnon (if things get that direction).

Also, my question (overall) still has yet to be answered: what about rookie on rookie violence? Is that bannable?


And that's why protecting "rookies" everywhere is a bad plan. What's the line between can baiting and jetcan mining?

As for rookie on rookie violence, I have no earthly idea. I don't think GM Hormonia's adressed how they deal with rookie on rookie violence.

"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

Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#522 - 2012-06-16 15:47:31 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Corina Jarr wrote:
Rhedea wrote:
Noobs are those still on the rookie channel, and should have icon to show it. Like a round icon ( ) instead of the normal [ ]
Like leaner plates (L) Lol
Anyway as long as they stay in High Sec they should be kinda safe. A sec hit of -10 for shooting a ( ) in High Sec. A Ban for shooting in a starting system. No if and or buts.


Hmm, decent. It means that alts on the same account will not be protected (an issue with any other method as we the player cannot determine who is a new account and who is just a new character).
Only issue is that alt accounts of old players can be protected in this way.


On a side note, it would be hilarious to find a vet abusing the rookie rules by continually taking from cans in Arnon (if things get that direction).

Also, my question (overall) still has yet to be answered: what about rookie on rookie violence? Is that bannable?


And that's why protecting "rookies" everywhere is a bad plan. What's the line between can baiting and jetcan mining?
....

At times their one and the same.

A person was Jet can mining, and had their corp sit by and wait to stomp anyone who would steal, get blown up, and then come back for revenge.

Was fun to watch for a bit.


But anyway. CCP wants to do something without devoting man hours to it, which is plain a bad idea to begin with.
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#523 - 2012-06-16 15:56:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Cutter Isaacson
Corina Jarr wrote:


But anyway. CCP wants to do something without devoting man hours to it, which is plain a bad idea to begin with.



I don't think its that they WANT to do something without devoting man hours, but rather thinking out loud if they COULD.

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

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#524 - 2012-06-16 16:02:49 UTC
Cutter Isaacson wrote:

Ok, so there are no other ways to repair standings then? Pretty sure there are, and lets face it, EVE is all about consequences, if you choose to go -10 then getting back from there should be difficult and not as simple as running noob starter missions. As for Rookies being dim, changes could also be made to the NPE to ensure a little more clarity and thus avoid such problems.

As for allowing can flipping in SOE missions in order to teach them a lesson, that is a woefully pathetic excuse. One often used by people with little to no real PvP experience who are merely looking for super weak targets to abuse. This should not be tolerated under any circumstances. Let them learn that lesson in level 2 or 3 missions, it won't take long. There is no reason whatsoever to allow it on the SOE missions as well.

Actually as for losing ships most of them will have already lost a ship or two BEFORE they get to the SOE stuff, especially since ship loss is now included as part of the NPE. My corp mate and best friend is also a rookie, she learned about ship loss in her tutorial missions, and then again when she started running her career agent missions, so it seems that it is working perfectly well already. If you want a reason NOT to protect rookies during SOE missions, that is not one of them.

And to your last point, for a start it was not me who had issues with the use of Wikipedia, perhaps it is not just me who has lost track of who said what in this thread eh? It is also worth noting that yet again, you are avoiding my point about common sense and intelligence by arguing semantics. You and I and everyone else here knows full well that unless you are a sad little bastard, we should all share some basic level of morality when it comes to the abusing of what could be considered minors. And for those that don't there is the ban hammer.


1) Faction and Corp Standings, not Sec Status. This mostly affects Mission Runners who simply didn't realize accepting anti-faction missions might hurt them later (it affected me with the Gallente, for instance). The Career agents give a fairly significant boost to faction standings with very low entrance requirements. There's really no harm in making faction standings easy to recover, since low standings don't let other players shoot you or anything.

2) First, you're treading close to the edge of fallacy. Secondly, I'm making no such excuse. I am saying that learning basic agression mechanics and that HS is not safe is a valuable lesson. The SOE was never a newbie mission, it was to be a low barrier of entry way to introduce the Epic Arc mission system to the masses. It was tied into the Career agents (actual newbie missions) because CCP wanted newbies to see their lates cool thing (that was never iterated upon).

3) Learning about Ship loss to NPCs in the very careful way the NPE does it (telling you several times before it happens) is very different from learning about ship loss to other players, including the seeming randomness and the agression mechanics. I want to make that lesson easier to bear by suggesting that the cost of learning it be mitigated (or even refund the ship and word the copypasta more strongly and almost eliminate the cost).

4) Yes we have the same morality, but we may not have the same line in our head as the GMs. A Minor is defined as <18yo in the US. 17y364d = Minor = Protected, 18y1d = Adult = Abuseable. There is a BRIGHT Shining line in the sand there. All I want is for their to be a bright Shining line in the sand with regard to Rookies. If you want to say a Rookie is 14, 30, 90 days old or younger, and protect them, say that. But prepare for that to be abused (as some minors in RL abuse their special protections).

"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
#525 - 2012-06-16 16:09:20 UTC
Corina Jarr wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Corina Jarr wrote:
Rhedea wrote:
Noobs are those still on the rookie channel, and should have icon to show it. Like a round icon ( ) instead of the normal [ ]
Like leaner plates (L) Lol
Anyway as long as they stay in High Sec they should be kinda safe. A sec hit of -10 for shooting a ( ) in High Sec. A Ban for shooting in a starting system. No if and or buts.


Hmm, decent. It means that alts on the same account will not be protected (an issue with any other method as we the player cannot determine who is a new account and who is just a new character).
Only issue is that alt accounts of old players can be protected in this way.


On a side note, it would be hilarious to find a vet abusing the rookie rules by continually taking from cans in Arnon (if things get that direction).

Also, my question (overall) still has yet to be answered: what about rookie on rookie violence? Is that bannable?


And that's why protecting "rookies" everywhere is a bad plan. What's the line between can baiting and jetcan mining?
....

At times their one and the same.

A person was Jet can mining, and had their corp sit by and wait to stomp anyone who would steal, get blown up, and then come back for revenge.

Was fun to watch for a bit.


But anyway. CCP wants to do something without devoting man hours to it, which is plain a bad idea to begin with.


So what happens if a nebulously defined rookie steals from that trap for flippers? Do you shoot and risk a ban, do you suck it up and realize that he's just gonna keep doing it?

I think what's going on is that we pressed GM Hormonia for a concrete policy that we can actually follow, and she asked us for help. Some of the earlier suggestions required Dev time, which she doesn't have access to atm, so she asked us to exclude suggestions that required Dev time. Dev Time != Man Hours because not all Man Hours are Dev time.

"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

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#526 - 2012-06-16 22:26:16 UTC
Pak Narhoo wrote:
[quote=GM Homonoia]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.


You all are what I would called seriously thick. Just read this.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#527 - 2012-06-16 23:57:54 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Mrr Woodcock wrote:
Pak Narhoo wrote:
[quote=GM Homonoia]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.


You all are what I would called seriously thick. Just read this.


"Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. "

"Do not mess with... in any way" Got it. Easily understood and Vague for an important reason.
"in rookie systems" Got it. Well defined.
"rookies" Whoops, undefined. What is the good reason for keeping this undefined?

A strict reading (not one that I'm espousing) of Hormonia's quote says that people are fair game as soon as they figure out how to read the overview and right click. So clearly, the definition the quote implies is not in the spirit of rookie protection.

I don't understand why the declaring who's being protected is kind of important for actually protecting them

"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

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#528 - 2012-06-17 05:35:30 UTC
I go away for a few days, and return to ~400 new posts in a thread I thought had died lol

Oh well, at least I haven't seen any threats to me given the now expanding definition of Rookie Systems..

GM's/CCP.. in the future, when you add a new system(s) to the Rookie System list, would it be possible for there to be some notification to users ? I'm thinking on the login where you normally talk about tomorrows downtime or something.. "The list of rookie systems has been updated, please visit ....." Just so no one is caught off guard.. Personally I'd like to have seen this when the rules changed, but given the rules haven't really been posted anywhere outside of this thread, I guess that's a nogo.

One other question to GM's/CCP.

Now I know you aren't gonna tell US what a rookie is.. BUT, do you, internal to the company, have one ? Basically what I'm asking is, if two people commit the same act, same conditions, different time of day, is there going to be no doubt that they will get the same punishment ? And not be solely based on the mood of the GM that is active at the time ?
EvEa Deva
Doomheim
#529 - 2012-06-17 06:58:29 UTC
poor rookies first time they leave station and it was like a wall of douche waiting to kill them. the change was needed.
Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#530 - 2012-06-17 08:41:41 UTC
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?

The GM's Request. How would we word a policy to define goals? Nothing about defining what a rookie is, no request for it, as a matter of fact the way I read the GM's post they all ready have a pretty good Idea. Hense the following:
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.

They have there defination in house. Sounds like this one is a done deal! How ever the GM expands slightly. as follows:
CONT.
Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#531 - 2012-06-17 08:48:26 UTC
GM Homonoia wrote:
Ginseng Jita wrote:
CCP needs to be upfront and define what a *rookie* is. Simple.


No, see my post above. We can define it, but you, as a player, have no way of verifying if another player fits the criteria.

In a previous post the GM xlearly states his motives, as follows:

GM Homonoia wrote:
Sephira Galamore wrote:
Sentinel Smith wrote:
Honestly.. I don't understand people who think knowing the rules is a bad thing.. Imagine if life was like that at home, school, and otherwise in the world..

"Don't speed on this road." "What's the speed limit ?" " Get on a different road." .. o_0

See, there are different kind of rules. The hard ones and the vague ones and each have a purpose.
If you state a rule somewhat vague you purposefully leave a grey area. Within this area, it is up to the police/judge/GM to decide whether you broke the rule or not.
The effect of this is a certain uncertainty, which may appear as a bad thing but often really isn't. Since the goal here is to avoid people walking the line, to push the limits, to find loopholes. On the other hand, it allows GM to show leniance, too. (Also, vague rules are used, when it's very difficult to actually define the limits objectively).
And you have these kind of rules/laws in real life, too.
"Don't drive in a way that recklessly endangers other traffic participants" - "Wait, what classifies as reckless driving?" - "Don't push it, man!"
If you would define "recklessly" by setting limits for speed, acceleration, deviation from the road center, and whatsnot, you'd leave loopholes. Of course, hard rules have a purpose aswell, as they make it easy to deal with obvious cases and are less prone to subjective judgement.
So back to topic:
If you are in a rookie system and in a situation where you wonder "Is this a rookie now or not?", it should be clear that as soon as you have valid cause to even ask this question, the safe course of action is to leave it be. It's a about common sense, really.
Of course you can still ask that question, answer it for yourself as good as you can, but when acting accordingly, you willingly accept the risk that goes along with that. Eve, consequences and stuff ;)

I cannot quote this person enough. Some rules are vague on purpose and they will remain vague. This is the 'reckless driving' equivalent. If I define the rules to the last dot someone will simply find a loop hole and use it. The rule is "do not mess with rookies", and if you are in doubt the answer is ALWAYS 'do not do it'.

OK, it would seem plausible, who ever would like to make a post to help the GM word a policy to define these goals, it would be welcome.

However if you don't understand the goals, or are resistant to the implied goals. I personally don't think your in anyway qualified to participate in this discussion. I'm going as time allow, try to help to this end.

As I read this the GM isn't asking in anyway for a what a rookie is, or what it should be. Posters beating this issue to death are simply not interested in helping the GM what so ever. IMO
Homo Jesus
The LGBT Last Supper
#532 - 2012-06-17 12:47:04 UTC
Oh that's funny. If we keep killing the new money you'll expand the newb system lists?

That will hurt you more than me so have at it.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#533 - 2012-06-17 13:27:29 UTC
Mrr Woodcock wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
Ginseng Jita wrote:
CCP needs to be upfront and define what a *rookie* is. Simple.


No, see my post above. We can define it, but you, as a player, have no way of verifying if another player fits the criteria.

In a previous post the GM xlearly states his motives, as follows:


Bolded the problem. If I, as a player who would be doing the shooting, don't know who I'm not allowed shoot, then rookies will get shot, because I, as a player, didn't know they were a rookie.

"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

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#534 - 2012-06-17 13:50:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Mrr Woodcock wrote:
The GM's Request. How would we word a policy to define goals? Nothing about defining what a rookie is, no request for it, as a matter of fact the way I read the GM's post they all ready have a pretty good Idea.
No, they didn't ask for a definition of rookie — we're asking them because their current policy doesn't include such a definition by design, and that makes it a rather poor policy. What they are asking us for is a rookie protection policy, and without any kind of definition of rookie to go by the best way to go about the creation of such a policy is to make one that doesn't need to define rookies.

Quote:
They have there defination in house. Sounds like this one is a done deal!
That's the entire problem. They have one in-house, and it depends on variables that are not available to outsiders. This makes it a rather useless and near-impossible policy to follow for those outsiders. This once again points to a policy that works without defining rookies as being a better option.

Any kind of ambiguity, opaqueness, or lack of clarity in the definition of the group being protected will inevitably mean that people genuinely belonging to that group will get shafted, and people who don't belong to the group will get unduly protected. Some of the examples brought up in this thread illustrates this quite clearly. If the group is such that it cannot be clearly defined, then the back-door to solve the problem is to (unambiguously, transparently, and clearly) define a proxy group which will unavoidably contain all those you want to protect.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#535 - 2012-06-17 14:10:39 UTC
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
To your first point regarding rookie missions, I honestly see no reason for an older player to go back to do them, and thus no reason to not ban them from those systems.
Well, aside from the reasons RubyPorto already mentioned (doing other factions' rookie missions, skipping them at first and then relenting and going back for them, rookie systems being school systems and thus a local source of skill books etc), there's also the other side of the fence: there's no actual harm in letting those older players in there. The protection they could get from this one dead-end system (which most of them are, iirc) is no different than what they'd get if they just stayed docked. Once you've run the tutorial missions in there, the system itself has nothing left to offer, so all there is in it is the one school station and that's it.

You could conceivably mine a little, but the belts in there are rather tiny and only contain veldspar, and/or could just be outright removed if that's a problem (it wouldn't make any difference to the rookies if the belts are there or whether they get sucked dry 15 minutes after downtime by Hulks who want 15 minutes of protected mining). Sure, you could park your hideously expensive officer-fit pirate BS in there but to what end? You can't do anything with it without taking it out of the protected system where it would get ganked. For those players, the systems just become huge-ass stations with particularly nasty docking games (in a regular station, you can just redock when you pop out and notice the gank squad outside… popping outside a system means arriving 15km from the gate and having to make your way back).

You can't hide from the game inside a rookie system as an older player, because the game is no longer there for you. So extending the security of the system to non-rookies has pretty much zero effect.
Grinder2210
Asteroid Farm Unlimited
Goonswarm Federation
#536 - 2012-06-18 01:35:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Grinder2210
Tippia wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
To your first point regarding rookie missions, I honestly see no reason for an older player to go back to do them, and thus no reason to not ban them from those systems.
Well, aside from the reasons RubyPorto already mentioned (doing other factions' rookie missions, skipping them at first and then relenting and going back for them, rookie systems being school systems and thus a local source of skill books etc), there's also the other side of the fence: there's no actual harm in letting those older players in there. The protection they could get from this one dead-end system (which most of them are, iirc) is no different than what they'd get if they just stayed docked. Once you've run the tutorial missions in there, the system itself has nothing left to offer, so all there is in it is the one school station and that's it.

You could conceivably mine a little, but the belts in there are rather tiny and only contain veldspar, and/or could just be outright removed if that's a problem (it wouldn't make any difference to the rookies if the belts are there or whether they get sucked dry 15 minutes after downtime by Hulks who want 15 minutes of protected mining). Sure, you could park your hideously expensive officer-fit pirate BS in there but to what end? You can't do anything with it without taking it out of the protected system where it would get ganked. For those players, the systems just become huge-ass stations with particularly nasty docking games (in a regular station, you can just redock when you pop out and notice the gank squad outside… popping outside a system means arriving 15km from the gate and having to make your way back).

You can't hide from the game inside a rookie system as an older player, because the game is no longer there for you. So extending the security of the system to non-rookies has pretty much zero effect.



100% agree with this expect in the case of Arnon CCPs newist addition to the rookies systems list
With the list expanding and threats of places like Hek being next its nolonger is just about a few deadends system that offer nothing to older players

Will allways be on the side of a clear deffnation in this, i feel ever player should know exactly what is aganced the rules
Grinder2210
Asteroid Farm Unlimited
Goonswarm Federation
#537 - 2012-06-18 05:59:54 UTC
Rhedea wrote:
Cistuvaert ahh home sweet home such a dangerous place to be I left quickly. No hand holding back then. Seat of the pants learning.

Noobs are those still on the rookie channel, and should have icon to show it. Like a round icon ( ) instead of the normal [ ]
Like leaner plates (L) Lol
Anyway as long as they stay in High Sec they should be kinda safe. A sec hit of -10 for shooting a ( ) in High Sec. A Ban for shooting in a starting system. No if and or buts.



Or even just there own Corp

After a set amount of time thay would be booted form the corp or be able to leave bye choice
Leaveing would move tham to there standered npc corp

This would be a easy way for ev1 to know there a rookie protected bye CCP

but may take some dev time =(
Bhear
#538 - 2012-06-18 06:17:26 UTC
Ginseng Jita wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
Ginseng Jita wrote:
CCP needs to be upfront and define what a *rookie* is. Simple.


No, see my post above. We can define it, but you, as a player, have no way of verifying if another player fits the criteria.


Oh, so you are saying we players are stupid. Thanks for the vote of confidence.



Are you a jerk on purpose?
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#539 - 2012-06-18 06:37:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Rinn
Tippia wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
Here are a few ideas on what classifies as a rookie, using information we can determine by just looking at the character and the ship that they fly, without having to know account details or play history. Define a rookie as any character you encounter who satisfies 3 of the following conditions:


The problem with that list is that it's easily gameable to provide protection to non-rookies.


No, it doesn't provide protection to anyone. The point of my definition was to provide guidance to players about who might or might not be safe to gank in rookie systems. The GMs have access to better information than us. I purposefully use the type of diagnosis applied to psychological or medical conditions because in those fields we also lack perfect information and are required to work on only that information that we can perceive.

Sure, you might be after a definition which is sealed in GM blood which allows players to determine who is safe to gank or not. Such a binding definition would be gamed far more easily then my suggested definition for player-diagnosis or other-player rookie status. To provide such a binding definition would also require exposing private information about the player behind the character.

So as a ganker, you could use the suggested diagnosis tool and avoid ganking people who are likely to be rookies.

The fascination with hard and fast rules implies that a lot of people are interested in gaming any rules that exist, more than they are interested in helping new players learn how to play the game.

Quote:
They have one in-house, and it depends on variables that are not available to outsiders. This makes it a rather useless and near-impossible policy to follow for those outsiders. This once again points to a policy that works without defining rookies as being a better option.


So you would prefer that GMs use a policy about not trapping new players with complex game mechanics, that doesn't even attempt to define what makes a "new player"? Perhaps a blanket ban on can flipping and baiting in starter systems?
Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#540 - 2012-06-18 07:24:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Mrr Woodcock
I think banning is a little stiff. I totally support bouncing the criminal straight to low sec, with a -10. Then simply not allowing the gates to even let them back in, till they recover there security status. The gates simply don't work for them. Return the rookies ship and what ever he or she may have lost.

Additionally no docking in high sec till, said security status is fixed.