These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Rookie System Page Update

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tah'ris Khlador
Space Ghosts.
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#161 - 2012-08-28 20:35:04 UTC
Minmatar Citizen160812 wrote:
Shouldn't those "greifers" be part of the tutorial?...OOoooooh we want to wait until after they subscribe for a month to start pushing their poo in. Ok, I kinda do stuff like that at work too.

Really, would anyone care if 1.0 systems were non-pvp systems? Who cares...let them cram in there and pay our bills to keep the hamsters on the wheels. Put some bunk lvl 1-4 agents in there and let them start wardecing each other for mining the rocks out completely 4 minutes after downtime. For them the cold harsh world of EvE will consist of shooting red crosses and being bored for a couple months.


You realize that there are quite a few other systems that are 1.0s other than rookie systems right? Jita perhaps?

Member of the Pink Pony Killboard Padding Alliance
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#162 - 2012-08-28 20:45:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Jorma Morkkis
Tippia wrote:
Interesting. This is rather contrary to what CCP claims, so maybe you have more information than they do. Would you care to provide a link?


http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_Systems

Tah'ris Khlador wrote:
You realize that there are quite a few other systems that are 1.0s other than rookie systems right? Jita perhaps?


Jita is 0.9.
Minmatar Citizen160812
The LGBT Last Supper
#163 - 2012-08-28 20:45:49 UTC
Tah'ris Khlador wrote:
Minmatar Citizen160812 wrote:
Shouldn't those "greifers" be part of the tutorial?...OOoooooh we want to wait until after they subscribe for a month to start pushing their poo in. Ok, I kinda do stuff like that at work too.

Really, would anyone care if 1.0 systems were non-pvp systems? Who cares...let them cram in there and pay our bills to keep the hamsters on the wheels. Put some bunk lvl 1-4 agents in there and let them start wardecing each other for mining the rocks out completely 4 minutes after downtime. For them the cold harsh world of EvE will consist of shooting red crosses and being bored for a couple months.


You realize that there are quite a few other systems that are 1.0s other than rookie systems right? Jita perhaps?


Ok...change Jita to a .9 and BAM problem solved. Honestly, why pussyfoot around and make convoluted "noobie" rules even the GMs don't understand completely?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#164 - 2012-08-28 20:50:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_Systems
…which is incomplete, inaccurate, and lacks the definitions in question.

And again, the whole point is that these things are expllicitly left undefined so if you want to claim that they are, you're arguing against CCP's own official statements. Good luck.

Minmatar Citizen160812 wrote:
Ok...change Jita to a .9 and BAM problem solved. Honestly, why pussyfoot around and make convoluted "noobie" rules even the GMs don't understand completely?
Well, as mentioned, Jita is 0.9 already. The thing is that safe space should basically not exist for general use. If all 1.0 was made completely safe, you would have yank everything worth-while out of them: no belts, no station services, hell, no stations to begin with. As it is, they serve a purpose, and setting a few of the aside for NPE use with special rules is a better overall solution.

That said, yes, that is the fundamental question: the GMs have set up this deliberately opaque and obfuscated internal rule set to solve a problem that would most likely be far better solved with very clear and precise rules because they feel that clear and precise rules would let people abuse the rules more than if the rules are unclear. Of course, as previous threads have shown, the main result of this seems to be that the GMs themselves are rather inconsistent in what they say is allowed and what isn't, even going so far as to post contradictory rules in the same post.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#165 - 2012-08-28 21:02:47 UTC
"The definition is obvious, you must be ********"
*Can't come up with a definition*

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#166 - 2012-08-28 21:07:52 UTC
Tippia wrote:
…which is incomplete


It's not.

Tippia wrote:
inaccurate


How is that?

Tippia wrote:
lacks the definitions in question


Rules? They have been posted by GM many times in various threads.

Tippia wrote:
And again, the whole point is that these things are expllicitly left undefined so if you want to claim that they are, you're arguing against CCP's own official statements. Good luck.


If they give you clear set of rules you will find the way to exploit them.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#167 - 2012-08-28 21:12:03 UTC
Tippia wrote:
That said, yes, that is the fundamental question: the GMs have set up this deliberately opaque and obfuscated internal rule set to solve a problem that would most likely be far better solved with very clear and precise rules because they feel that clear and precise rules would let people abuse the rules more than if the rules are unclear. Of course, as previous threads have shown, the main result of this seems to be that the GMs themselves are rather inconsistent in what they say is allowed and what isn't, even going so far as to post contradictory rules in the same post.

Not empty quoting.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#168 - 2012-08-28 21:13:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
It's not.
Seeing as how newbies are being protected outside of those systems (you know, the topic of the thread), indeed it is.

Quote:
How is that?
The incompleteness for one, the description of what's not allowed for another.

Quote:
Rules?
No, the definitions. But sure, yes, it lacks the rules as well.

Quote:
If they give you clear set of rules you will find the way to exploit them.
Care to name any exploits that would come out of the proposed rules? Oh, and it's not as if people can't find ways to exploit unclear rules (largely because the lack of clarity means there's so much unknown territory to exploit). Anyway, you agree then: the terms are intentionally left undefined, and your claims that they are clear thus contradict what CCP tells us.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#169 - 2012-08-28 21:14:47 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Tippia wrote:
That said, yes, that is the fundamental question: the GMs have set up this deliberately opaque and obfuscated internal rule set to solve a problem that would most likely be far better solved with very clear and precise rules because they feel that clear and precise rules would let people abuse the rules more than if the rules are unclear. Of course, as previous threads have shown, the main result of this seems to be that the GMs themselves are rather inconsistent in what they say is allowed and what isn't, even going so far as to post contradictory rules in the same post.

Not empty quoting.


Could you give an example of the rule that can't be exploited?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#170 - 2012-08-28 21:18:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Could you give an example of the rule that can't be exploited?
So far, no-one has been able to present any exploit related to the proposed newbie protection scheme, in spite of having been asked many many many times…

Can you come up with one?
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#171 - 2012-08-28 21:23:22 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Could you give an example of the rule that can't be exploited?
So far, no-one has been able to present any exploit related to the proposed newbie protection scheme, in spite of having been asked many many many times…

Can you come up with one?


- "Free stuff in xxxxxxx!" - you should be familiar with this one since you guys use this already...
- If noob has stuff worth more than 20M in cargohold protection is removed -> I can figure out at least 5 ways to exploit it. Only took 5 seconds.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#172 - 2012-08-28 21:30:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
- "Free stuff in xxxxxxx!" - you should be familiar with this one since you guys use this already...
…and it exploits the rule, how?

Quote:
- If noob has stuff worth more than 20M in cargohold protection is removed -> I can figure out at least 5 ways to exploit it. Only took 5 seconds.
…which relates to the rule set in question, how, exactly? In fact, what are you referencing here to begin with? You seem to be quoting a rule that does not exist and which has never been mentioned…
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#173 - 2012-08-28 21:33:45 UTC
Tippia wrote:
…which relates to the rule set in question, how, exactly? In fact, what are you referencing here to begin with? You seem to be quoting a rule that does not exist and which has never been mentioned…


You want rules to be like that.
You want clear set of rules so you can find the way to get your easy kills.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#174 - 2012-08-28 21:34:36 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Tippia wrote:
…which relates to the rule set in question, how, exactly? In fact, what are you referencing here to begin with? You seem to be quoting a rule that does not exist and which has never been mentioned…


You want rules to be like that.
You want clear set of rules so you can find the way to get your easy kills.

yay strawman

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#175 - 2012-08-28 21:36:20 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
You want rules to be like that.
No. So basically, it was just nonsense. Good to know.
Quote:
You want clear set of rules so you can find the way to get your easy kills.
No.

Again, can you come up with any kind of exploit related to the proposed newbie protection scheme?
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#176 - 2012-08-28 21:38:22 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Again, can you come up with any kind of exploit related to the proposed newbie protection scheme?


What rules you have proposed if they aren't mentioned in this thread?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#177 - 2012-08-28 21:40:25 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
What rules you have proposed if they aren't mentioned in this thread?
The one we're talking about is the one presented in this thread (copied from the previous one on the topic).

So again, can you come up with any kind of exploit related to the proposed newbie protection scheme?
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#178 - 2012-08-28 21:42:26 UTC
Tippia wrote:
The one we're talking about is the one presented in this thread (copied from the previous one on the topic).


And what rule is that?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#179 - 2012-08-28 21:45:50 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
And what rule is that?
So you can't think of any exploit, in other words.

Well, that answers your question for the time being: so far, this proposal is the example you're looking for.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#180 - 2012-08-28 21:53:26 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
And what rule is that?
So you can't think of any exploit, in other words.

Well, that answers your question for the time being: so far, this proposal is the example you're looking for.


Could you give a link to your "newbie protection scheme" because for some reason I can't find it.

Oh, you mean the fact that you kids don't know all SoE epic arc systems?