| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Reply to Topic | Show CCP posts - 12 post(s) |

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
42
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 17:51:00 -
[1] - Quote
Okay.. so up until recently the rules for Rookie Systems have been fairly cut and dry.
[ quote from GM posted in Local some months ago
Flipping is clear, taking someone else's can, and moving it's contents into your own.. Reason behind it it being that new players would take from your new can to get their stuff back, and then you'd pop them
Baiting was a little more of a grey area, but generally mean any time you dropped a can and then engaged someone who took from it, with the exception being if you were actively mining and using it, or if via local/pm/can name you were making a 1v1 can or something like that.
Now I have heard recently that this has changed
Now almost any action that destroys a new player in a Rookie system is a warn/bannable offence. If you steal from someone, they engage you, and you destroy them.. you are at risk of a ban If you kill a npc, wt, etc, and someone steals from you, and you kill them, you are at risk of a ban etc
I have seen no changes to the EULA or Wiki about rookie system rules No announcement was made to warn players that the rules have changed, some just woke up to a ban/warning. How is it fair that someone receive a ban/warning for doing something that a few days before was by other GM's own statements, allowed
So what are the exact rules now ? What is a new player ? Does this mean that if you see a blinking red in a rookie system you need to first check their profile before shooting ? What if my account is 6 years old, but I only played for one day 6 years ago and now I'm back, am I still new of am I a valid target now ? What if you have an active war with a corp, and a "new" player is in that corp.. They are still new, are they valid targets
I've heard the phrase is to trick a new player into allowing you to engage.. This is a fairly subjective statement isn't it ? I mean I could go through the belt ratting, leave wrecks, continue to another belt, meet a player that took from one.. It's a red target, and I might have had no intent of tricking.. And now there's a warning just for engaging something that the game mechanics themselves say is valid
Now I'm not against any changes.. I think the old rules had loopholes so big you could fly a titan through.. But I just think the rules need to be made clear.
And if the goal is removing these issues, why not just remove the ability to steal in Rookie systems ? Or disable aggro mechanics there all together ? Rather than what are potentially subjective rules, if the method of enforcement is the same as a week ago, relies on someone Knowing the rules and making a petition to a GM about it
Oh and before people ask or accuse, I don't go around griefing noobs.. Ask anyone in Clellinon.. I have 15+ petitions in my history reporting people for baiting and flipping.. I'm all about protecting the newbies.. But I also think everyone should have a fair chance to know the rules ahead of time. God knows I've had to warn enough veteran players from baiting/flipping because the last time they were in a rookie system it was fine, and because they didn't check for the new rules.. But with no new rules being posted, yet warning/bans being issued, I think that's unfair to punish people for what was permitted actions in the sandbox without first providing them the Information to them to prevent that.. if the EULA/Wikie rules were updated, and no one checked, hey, tough luck.. but if they aren't, then that's just not right
So if a GM would be so kind to shead some light on this, so I and others know what actions should be avoided, or if seen should warrent a petition, I and I'm sure both Rookies, and corps/individuals that reside in rookie systems would appriciate it |

Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
115
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 18:01:00 -
[2] - Quote
I do know that it is perfectly acceptable to gank someone in a rookie system because I petitioned the action before I did it (******* AFK Hulk drivers...) +1 in local |

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
264
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 18:04:00 -
[3] - Quote
Move away from starter systems Find better targets ?????? Profit! Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

Maxpie
Metaphysical Utopian Society Explorations
69
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 18:12:00 -
[4] - Quote
Why are you sitting in the starter system trying to go up to the line without crossing it? Leave the noobs alone. There will be plenty of time to grief those players later, if that's your thing. Don't make them quit before they get the opportunity to appreciate the game. |

Utremi Fasolasi
La Dolce Vita
69
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 18:16:00 -
[5] - Quote
It's not a new rule or new interpretation, it was a reinforcement of what's always been the case at least as long as I've been a player since Aprocrypha in 2009.
Any kind of harassment of noobs in rookie systems is a no no and always has been. Just go one jump over, how hard would that be...  |

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
42
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 18:21:00 -
[6] - Quote
Maxpie wrote:Why are you sitting in the starter system trying to go up to the line without crossing it? Leave the noobs alone. There will be plenty of time to grief those players later, if that's your thing. Don't make them quit before they get the opportunity to appreciate the game. The only Noob I, or any of my alts ever killed, was when I was a noob myself.. If I, or my alts want a fight, I make my way to Null and get a real one :)
Why do I live in the starter system ? Cause when I'm docked up I rather enjoy helping rookies out with their questions, giving suggestions, etc.. People were nice enough to help me out when I was starting.. And because a Rookie system is big enough to always have an active local chat, without the crap that goes on at mission and trade hubs.. Plus the system is rather centrality located to where I mission, mine, and hauling to hubs..
Well since I started in Nov, I know what was enforced, and what GM's would say was okay/not okay from the many times they showed up in local.. Give what they said at the time, these are new rules, or at least directly contradict what GM's said was okay over Christmas. Now as I said, I support stronger rules.. a lot of crap was done in Rookie systems "legally".. But I think it's important that the rules get spelled out. |

Avid Bumhumper
Furian Necromongers
55
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 19:23:00 -
[7] - Quote
I'm not sure admitting your an incompetent player that can only handle noobs is something you want to post here.....
My Tinfoil hat has been sugically implanted, so no,it is not for sale..... |

Elder Ozzian
Stargates and Smuggler Barons
30
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:07:00 -
[8] - Quote
In my opinion; When you undock, you are in risk - even in rookie systems! That is the Eve we all love. If they don't understand the warning text when stealing; add a warning box for undocking!
They got warned, didn't they?
Also, give more free skillpoints to new players, so they can actually fight back! |
|

GM Homonoia
Game Masters C C P Alliance
539

 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:12:00 -
[9] - Quote
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. Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master |
|

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
251
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:13:00 -
[10] - Quote
Only Rookies have Cookies!
Can rookies not have a training system locked only for them for say, 1 week? or until they complete a training tutorial then the gate is open and they MUST leave that system and we can do what we want then? That way they cannot hide in 1.0 forever. |
|

Pak Narhoo
Knights of Kador
448
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:15:00 -
[11] - Quote
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.
o.0
Applause!
Who needs television when you have EVE? EVE drama, best drama. |

Jonah Gravenstein
183
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:17:00 -
[12] - Quote
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.
[troll]but..but.. that describes 50% of the player base[/troll]
War hasn't been fought this badly since Olaf the Hairy, High Chief of all the Vikings, accidentally ordered 80,000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside. |

Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
273
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:30:00 -
[13] - Quote
If its a t2 in a rookie system. its not a rookie. Gack them. Otherwise its still and always has been cut and dry. |

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
47
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:31:00 -
[14] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. Thankyou for the concise response :)
Could we get some indication of what a Rookie is ?
Maybe not an exact date and time.. but.. Clearly messing with a newbie in a Navitas would be bad.. What about the guy that shows up in a Retty, Cov, Hulk, stripping the belts bare.. Are we allowed to mess with them ?
Or the two month player running scanned sites down, and ratting in the belts.. are the free to steal from or engage if they take from us ?
There are lots of players that pass through at least the Rookie system I base out of, of all ages, skill levels, and intent.. |

Sigurd Sig Hansen
Hedion University Amarr Empire
32
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:34:00 -
[15] - Quote
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.
Yeah those sociopathic personalities ppl say dont actually exist in this game...
Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2944
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:37:00 -
[16] - Quote
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 |

Sigurd Sig Hansen
Hedion University Amarr Empire
32
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:42:00 -
[17] - Quote
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
again...
Heres an idea, go to those systems and if you get banned, that was a rookie.
Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game |

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
47
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:42:00 -
[18] - Quote
Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:Here's an idea, go to those systems and if you get banned, that was a rookie.
Dont think its THAT hard to figure out who NOT to kill when they GIVE YOU A LIST of systems -.- I live in a rookie system.. and as I said, me, and all my alts have accounted for 1 "newbie" kill, and that was when I was a newbie.. [ first week or so.. ]..
But I also run sites, not uncommon for another player I personally would consider not a rookie to show up and start stealing from the first room while I'm in another.. Valid target in my books, I wouldn't consider anyone who can scan down a Serpentis Watch for example a newbie.. But I donno what I GM would say..
I want to know where I stand.. and I really don't care if people want to troll with "go elsewhere".. I'm quite happy where I am.. and I'll be fine with the rules either way.. but I still want to know.. |

Sigurd Sig Hansen
Hedion University Amarr Empire
32
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:45:00 -
[19] - Quote
Sentinel Smith wrote:Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:Here's an idea, go to those systems and if you get banned, that was a rookie.
Dont think its THAT hard to figure out who NOT to kill when they GIVE YOU A LIST of systems -.- I live in a rookie system.. and as I said, me, and all my alts have accounted for 1 "newbie" kill, and that was when I was a newbie.. [ first week or so.. ].. But I also run sites, not uncommon for another player I personally would consider not a rookie to show up and start stealing from the first room while I'm in another.. Valid target in my books, I wouldn't consider anyone who can scan down a Serpentis Watch for example a newbie.. But I donno what I GM would say.. I want to know where I stand.. and I really don't care if people want to troll with "go elsewhere".. I'm quite happy where I am.. and I'll be fine with the rules either way.. but I still want to know..
wel... be careful who you kill in that system tyhen. Apparently you take the real chance of getting yourself banned for killing ppl there
Its your choice to remain where youve now directly been warned that you may get banned for killing ppl.... Kinda up to you at this point lol
Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game |

Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
662
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:45:00 -
[20] - Quote
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 If they are in a rookie system I would say you are wrong. Not everyone is "all in" when they start playing. I certainly wasn't. It may be that they only actually played a few times but skilled up to fly a mining barge. An exumer would probably be a different story... do what you want but I would just avoid rookie systems altogether.
|
|

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
47
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:46:00 -
[21] - Quote
I am careful.. it's also why I'm Asking ... So I know for sure lol
No sense running around blind.. |

Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
612
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:49:00 -
[22] - Quote
The rookie help chat channel auto opens for the first, what, two weeks? Maybe that's a good definition of a rookie. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |

Sigurd Sig Hansen
Hedion University Amarr Empire
33
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:50:00 -
[23] - Quote
Gogela wrote: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 If they are in a rookie system I would say you are wrong. Not everyone is "all in" when they start playing. I certainly wasn't. It may be that they only actually played a few times but skilled up to fly a mining barge. An exumer would probably be a different story... do what you want but I would just avoid rookie systems altogether.
Kinda the idea I was hinting at
Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game |

Cavel Avada
Estel Arador Corp Services
7
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:52:00 -
[24] - Quote
Lot of reading comprehension fails in this thread. OP clearly said she's NOT actively griefing newbs, but wants to know if it's ok to kill a newb who does something that deserves it (like stealing her stuff whens he's minding her own business).
Seems like a valid question to me. |

Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
662
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:55:00 -
[25] - Quote
Cavel Avada wrote:Lot of reading comprehension fails in this thread. OP clearly said she's NOT actively griefing newbs, but wants to know if it's ok to kill a newb who does something that deserves it (like stealing her stuff whens he's minding her own business).
Seems like a valid question to me. If you've been playing for more than 6 months and are still in rookie systems EvE might not be your thing is all I'm sayin'
|

Sigurd Sig Hansen
Hedion University Amarr Empire
34
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:56:00 -
[26] - Quote
Cavel Avada wrote:Lot of reading comprehension fails in this thread. OP clearly said she's NOT actively griefing newbs, but wants to know if it's ok to kill a newb who does something that deserves it (like stealing her stuff whens he's minding her own business).
Seems like a valid question to me.
Yeah but most of those asking for further clarification past the GM's clarification are ppl looking TO gank.
Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game |

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
48
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 21:01:00 -
[27] - Quote
Cavel Avada wrote:Lot of reading comprehension fails in this thread. OP clearly said she's NOT actively griefing newbs, but wants to know if it's ok to kill a newb who does something that deserves it (like stealing her stuff whens he's minding her own business).
Seems like a valid question to me. I don't want to kill newbies at all lol
But if what I define a rookie as, and what a GM does are not the same, then there could be issues..
And Gogela.. I can stay in a this system for 6 years if I want too.. I don't spend all my time here.. But it's still my home base..
If I want to mine, 0.5.. If I want to trade, Jita.. If I want a fight, nullsec.
But I still scan and run sites where ever I find them, and other things.. So I want to know where things stand..
Don't know why everyone thinks the answer for "What are the rules?" is "Move".. Don't work like that anywhere else in Eve, or irl lol. |

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
48
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 21:05:00 -
[28] - Quote
Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:Cavel Avada wrote:Lot of reading comprehension fails in this thread. OP clearly said she's NOT actively griefing newbs, but wants to know if it's ok to kill a newb who does something that deserves it (like stealing her stuff whens he's minding her own business).
Seems like a valid question to me. Yeah but most of those asking for further clarification past the GM's clarification are ppl looking TO gank. If a GM would do it, I'd gladly get them to vouch for the fact that none of my accounts or toons have ever ganked anyone, or griefed rookies, but anyone definition.
I know anyone that has spent time in Clellinon will vouch for the fact that I help, not grief.. but oh well..
Some people just want to know the rules of the game.. I want to know when I see a Red who isn't in an 'early' ship if I can Shoot.. And I want to know the specifics in case I want to petition someone who is imho greifing a newbie, or seems to be looking for trouble so I can advise them of the rules.. |

Nephilius
Knights of Athena Star Council
364
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 21:05:00 -
[29] - Quote
If you are not a rookie, why are you in a rookie system? I love flying titans in Jita, setting bubbles in Rens,-aor firing off bombs from my stealth bomber-ain Dodixie!-a Just think, if Eve wasn't a sandbox, none of this would be possible! |

Sigurd Sig Hansen
Hedion University Amarr Empire
34
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 21:09:00 -
[30] - Quote
Sentinel Smith wrote:Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:Cavel Avada wrote:Lot of reading comprehension fails in this thread. OP clearly said she's NOT actively griefing newbs, but wants to know if it's ok to kill a newb who does something that deserves it (like stealing her stuff whens he's minding her own business).
Seems like a valid question to me. Yeah but most of those asking for further clarification past the GM's clarification are ppl looking TO gank. If a GM would do it, I'd gladly get them to vouch for the fact that none of my accounts or toons have ever ganked anyone, or griefed rookies, but anyone definition. I know anyone that has spent time in Clellinon will vouch for the fact that I help, not grief.. but oh well.. Some people just want to know the rules of the game.. I want to know when I see a Red who isn't in an 'early' ship if I can Shoot.. And I want to know the specifics in case I want to petition someone who is imho greifing a newbie, or seems to be looking for trouble so I can advise them of the rules..
if you shoot someone in the system youre in... Im guessing expect a ban. Even/especially if they shoot you first (as theyre expected to do stupid stuff like that cause they dont know better) Hell, the first time I remember dying I was in my shiny new kestrel and saw someone in a pod, on a gate who had a 100 million bounty on them (that was alot to me back then) so I locked and fires
ONE LIGHT MISSILE

there was much lolling in local at my expense
Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game |
|

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
251
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 21:11:00 -
[31] - Quote
I wonder if GM's will move my highsec carrier to Ammold 1.0 :) |

Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
356
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 21:18:00 -
[32] - Quote
Gogela wrote: do what you want but I would just avoid rookie systems altogether. That's my take as well. I was in Hadaugago on an alt running the basic tutorials to see how the game had changed in 4 years (#1 change? ZOMG they get a buncha sheit!) - I saw a can outside the undock named "WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!" - player that owned it was 2 months old, but had no kills on his record.
Just leave the n00bs alone, ffs....
And if you live there? Just be carefull....
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
49
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 21:31:00 -
[33] - Quote
Nephilius wrote:If you are not a rookie, why are you in a rookie system? Because the system is convient for my needs.. not too far from good ore, good missions, trade hubs, and the areas of Null I go..
No reason to move.. And moving would be more trouble than it's worth..
And even if It wasn't.. The gates go both ways.. It's a sandbox and I'm free to be there.. all I want to know are the rules. |

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
252
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 21:32:00 -
[34] - Quote
Simple solution to force rookies out, everybody raise the prices of stuff in 1.0 systems to UNAFFORDABLE :) |

Sigurd Sig Hansen
Hedion University Amarr Empire
34
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 21:34:00 -
[35] - Quote
Miilla wrote:Simple solution to force rookies out, everybody raise the prices of stuff in 1.0 systems to UNAFFORDABLE :)
wonder if the GMs would see that as griefing the noobs and ban everyone involved lol
Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game |

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
252
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 21:35:00 -
[36] - Quote
Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:Miilla wrote:Simple solution to force rookies out, everybody raise the prices of stuff in 1.0 systems to UNAFFORDABLE :) wonder if the GMs would see that as griefing the noobs and ban everyone involved lol
But we aren't in 1.0 systems :)
Hint: remote buy / sell :) |

Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
31
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 21:38:00 -
[37] - Quote
That "I just run combat sites in here" could be used for "baiting".
I keep avoiding rookie systems not because of noobs but because of those 2 year old characters jettisoning "free stuff!" cans. |

Sigurd Sig Hansen
Hedion University Amarr Empire
34
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 21:39:00 -
[38] - Quote
Miilla wrote:Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:Miilla wrote:Simple solution to force rookies out, everybody raise the prices of stuff in 1.0 systems to UNAFFORDABLE :) wonder if the GMs would see that as griefing the noobs and ban everyone involved lol But we aren't in 1.0 systems :) Hint: remote buy / sell :)
Doubt theyd bee the difference way they seem to be "BAN first ask questions later" when it comes to noobs
Wonder if youd get banned to be in another system and send a noob a mail that says "meet me in x system an Ill give you 100 mil" then you gank them? Im betting they might cause itd be a **** move an youre negatively influencing a noob's experience even tho youre not in the starter system.
Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game |

Something Random
The Barrow Boys
138
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 21:49:00 -
[39] - Quote
Sentinel Smith wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. Thankyou for the concise response :) Could we get some indication of what a Rookie is ? Maybe not an exact date and time.. but.. Clearly messing with a newbie in a Navitas would be bad.. What about the guy that shows up in a Retty, Cov, Hulk, stripping the belts bare.. Are we allowed to mess with them ? Or the two month player running scanned sites down, and ratting in the belts.. are the free to steal from or engage if they take from us ? There are lots of players that pass through at least the Rookie system I base out of, of all ages, skill levels, and intent..
Its real simple as the GM stated.
Get out of rookie systems. They are saying ANYWHERE else you can pretty much do whatever.
BUT you seem to insist youll live in like 20 systems in the freaking 5000+ system universe ? Logic fail. OR you like kicking the smallest kids in kindergarten still at the age of 30 probably. "caught on fire a little bit, just a little." "Delinquents, check, weirdos, check, hippies, check, pillheads, check, freaks, check, potheads, check .....gangsn++ all here!" |

hakkiew365
Aideron Robotics Darkmatter Initiative
2
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 21:54:00 -
[40] - Quote
Ive never understood the logic behind killing rookie players, its like throwing a kid on thin ice when they are just learning how to walk. I mean what does the veteran gain from killing noobs besides 1 trit, an ibis killmail and an epeen stroke. |
|

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
253
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 21:58:00 -
[41] - Quote
Is it allowed to go into 1.0 in a hulk and suck all the roids up?
This isn't "baiting" noobs :) |

Sigurd Sig Hansen
Hedion University Amarr Empire
34
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 21:59:00 -
[42] - Quote
hakkiew365 wrote:Ive never understood the logic behind killing rookie players, its like throwing a kid on thin ice when they are just learning how to walk. I mean what does the veteran gain from killing noobs besides 1 trit, an ibis killmail and an epeen stroke. a sociopathic rush? rofl
Hey Millia, do us all a favor an to grab up an orca, a few accounts and hulks and nom all the rocks out of a few noob systems and see it they do anything. Think of yourself as the high sec Goonswarm, daring CCP to do something.
Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game |

Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
275
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:01:00 -
[43] - Quote
hakkiew365 wrote:Ive never understood the logic behind killing rookie players, its like throwing a kid on thin ice when they are just learning how to walk.
Some people like pulling the legs off insects. |

Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
31
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:06:00 -
[44] - Quote
Miilla wrote:Is it allowed to go into 1.0 in a hulk and suck all the roids up?
Any reasons why I'm not allowed to mine in Amarr? By your logic of course...
Actually I don't mine in Amarr, but because you mentioned 1.0 and Hulk... |

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
50
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:08:00 -
[45] - Quote
You can keep assuming I'm the one griefing them.. All I can say is I'm not..
How can running a scanned site, like Serpentis watch, and killing a looter be considered baiting ? It's not an easy site to scan down, and ontop of that, it's not in public spaces at all. But situations like that is WHY I'm asking so I, and anyone else who happens to search the forums knows.. or at least would have the means to know..
If it is, so be it.. I won't shoot loot thieves.. And the next guy who does, when he says "How the hell would I know", well, it would be on the forums.. or better yet posted in the Rules.. where they should be.
Why do I chose to live here ? Cause I do.. As I said a dozen times, it's convent to the locations where I mine, mission, and trade.. It normally has severial good sites to scan down a run a day. It's where I have the majority of my stuff..
I'm not moving.. so I just want to know the specifics..
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
I guess in the future I'll just make a petition when I have a question for the GM's.. Clearly most would rather assume that anyone who wants to know the rules is trying to subvert them.. |

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
253
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:08:00 -
[46] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Miilla wrote:Is it allowed to go into 1.0 in a hulk and suck all the roids up? Any reasons why I'm not allowed to mine in Amarr? By your logic of course...
I mean the "specific" rookie 1.0 systems. Amarr has Chaven , Sehmy and Emrayur . |

Radelix Cisko
The Adjustment Team
69
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:09:00 -
[47] - Quote
I go to rookie systems for the skillbooks, and my alt lives in one because I haven't moved her in a while
|

Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
31
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:13:00 -
[48] - Quote
Miilla wrote:I mean the "specific" rookie 1.0 systems. Amarr has Chaven , Sehmy and Emrayur .
You do know that Amarr (solar system) is 1.0? You should be more specific with your questions in the future then. |

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
253
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:14:00 -
[49] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Miilla wrote:I mean the "specific" rookie 1.0 systems. Amarr has Chaven , Sehmy and Emrayur . You do know that Amarr (solar system) is 1.0? You should be more specific with your questions in the future then.
Not my fault you are thick. |

Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
178
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:15:00 -
[50] - Quote
Rookies got auto kicked out of the Rookie Help channel after 30 days so I would say anyone 1 month and older is fair game. |
|

Killer Gandry
V I R I I Ineluctable.
312
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:16:00 -
[51] - Quote
I hardly ever go to a rookie system, only if a skillbook is required and it's the closest station.
As for what a rookie is and what not, if people can't use common sense as to what a rookie in a rookie system is and what not they are in the wrong game aswel.
If you see a hulk in there you sure as hell can say it isn't a rookie.
And it's a very good thing there is some protection in Rookie systems because else we would see a lot of fail people in there messing up the game of those who just started. If you can't wait for them to come out of that system then you also are in the wrong game.
|

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
253
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:17:00 -
[52] - Quote
Vaal Erit wrote:Rookies got auto kicked out of the Rookie Help channel after 30 days so I would say anyone 1 month and older is fair game.
They do? OH nice, now lets take it to stage 2 :) |

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
253
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:17:00 -
[53] - Quote
Killer Gandry wrote:I hardly ever go to a rookie system, only if a skillbook is required and it's the closest station.
As for what a rookie is and what not, if people can't use common sense as to what a rookie in a rookie system is and what not they are in the wrong game aswel.
If you see a hulk in there you sure as hell can say it isn't a rookie.
And it's a very good thing there is some protection in Rookie systems because else we would see a lot of fail people in there messing up the game of those who just started. If you can't wait for them to come out of that system then you also are in the wrong game.
This way they would be protected, it will be a one way door so older chars cannot enter it and thus rookies are safer this way (until they leave :) ) |

Something Random
The Barrow Boys
138
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:21:00 -
[54] - Quote
[quote=Killer Gandry
If you see a hulk in there you sure as hell can say it isn't a rookie.
[/quote]
Unfortunately due to plex and char bazaar, it may be a rookie.
However - the case stated above of a serp watch spawning in the 1.0 and a lewter attack - i say nuke there ass, noob or not.
Good point btw o7 "caught on fire a little bit, just a little." "Delinquents, check, weirdos, check, hippies, check, pillheads, check, freaks, check, potheads, check .....gangsn++ all here!" |

Killer Gandry
V I R I I Ineluctable.
312
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:21:00 -
[55] - Quote
Miilla wrote:
This way they would be protected, it will be a one way door so older chars cannot enter it and thus rookies are safer this way (until they leave :) )
There is no need for CCP to dictate how long someone can remain in a certain system. Else we could also implement a rule on how long a logged in character may stay docked or within a PoS shield. Or how long a cloak may work etc.
|

Killer Gandry
V I R I I Ineluctable.
312
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:23:00 -
[56] - Quote
Something Random wrote: Unfortunately due to plex and char bazaar, it may be a rookie.
If someone buys a character and equipment to get started I don't count them as Rookie either. Those are walletwarriors and are free game anywhere.
|

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
253
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:25:00 -
[57] - Quote
Killer Gandry wrote:Miilla wrote:
This way they would be protected, it will be a one way door so older chars cannot enter it and thus rookies are safer this way (until they leave :) )
There is no need for CCP to dictate how long someone can remain in a certain system. Else we could also implement a rule on how long a logged in character may stay docked or within a PoS shield. Or how long a cloak may work etc.
They already dictate to older chars in rookie systems and other parts of eve. |

Vertisce Soritenshi
Varion Galactic Tragedy.
1574
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:28:00 -
[58] - Quote
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. Leave the rookies alone! You don't know where they have been! You don't know what they went through to get where they are! Leave them alone! ~Chris Crocker
Im kidding...but seriously...why do people care what changes are made in rookie systems? If you still haven't moved on and found something better to do than pick on rookies...well...you might just still be a rookie then. EvE is not about PvP.-a EvE is about the SANDBOX! - CCP!-a Open the door!!! |

Killer Gandry
V I R I I Ineluctable.
312
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:38:00 -
[59] - Quote
Miilla wrote:
They already dictate to older chars in rookie systems and other parts of eve. Eve is not the sandbox you think it is, that is a marketing term.
Nice attempt to pull off a twist. But the only thing achieved is that you sound kinda butthurt that there is a rookie protection in rookie systems.
|

Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
664
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:41:00 -
[60] - Quote
Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:[quote=hakkiew365]*snip* a sociopathic rush? rofl *snip* Sociopaths don't get a "rush" of any kind. That's what makes them sociopaths.
|
|

DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1779
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 23:04:00 -
[61] - Quote
Sentinel Smith wrote:You can keep assuming I'm the one griefing them.. All I can say is I'm not.. I guess in the future I'll just make a petition when I have a question for the GM's.. Clearly most would rather assume that anyone who wants to know the rules is trying to subvert them..
CCP has made it quite clear they want to bring new players to this game. GM has made it quite clear that new players in the Rookie Systems are not to be messed with.
WTF is so hard to understand about that?
You say : What if a new player in the Rookie System scans down a 'Watch' site and then steals your loot?
Everyone more or less knows there's a very small extreme chance of that ever happening.
What I see is you looking for some sort of loophole that allows you to kill new players in the Rookie systems. |

Sid Hudgens
32
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 23:14:00 -
[62] - Quote
Sentinel Smith wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. Thankyou for the concise response :) Could we get some indication of what a Rookie is ?
Can we get a clear definition of what a "system" is?
Also, "in any way" seems ambiguous to me ... can you clarify? "....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced." |

Ifly Uwalk
Concentrated Evil Mining For Profit Alliance
210
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 23:22:00 -
[63] - Quote
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. Whoa whoa whoa...
You mean that every time I go to Aki to strip the belts there with my Hulk (as I am wont to do) and some lessthanaday old n00b comes along and steals ALL my stuff with his Ibis of Dewm - I can't even throw out my drones so they insta-pop his sorry a$$ before I can even click "Engage?"
Nerf n00bs!  |

DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1779
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 23:28:00 -
[64] - Quote
Sid Hudgens wrote:Sentinel Smith wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. Thankyou for the concise response :) Could we get some indication of what a Rookie is ? Can we get a clear definition of what a "system" is? Also, "in any way" seems ambiguous to me ... can you clarify?
WTF, is it troll season now?
FYI - 'system' is a short term for 'Solar System'. If you don't understand that, google it.
Also, 'Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way' means exactly that. If you need it to be clarified then you lack basic comprehension skills. If you don't understand that, google it.
|

Xython
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
707
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 23:29:00 -
[65] - Quote
Karl Hobb wrote:I do know that it is perfectly acceptable to gank someone in a rookie system because I petitioned the action before I did it (******* AFK Hulk drivers...)
I can't imagine anyone would seriously try to say "I can't be ganked in my expensive mining barge, I was in a NEWBIE SECTOR", but who knows? Pubbies are dumb. |

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
53
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 23:30:00 -
[66] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:CCP has made it quite clear they want to bring new players to this game. GM has made it quite clear that new players in the Rookie Systems are not to be messed with.
WTF is so hard to understand about that?
You say : What if a new player in the Rookie System scans down a 'Watch' site and then steals your loot?
Everyone more or less knows there's a very small extreme chance of that ever happening.
What I see is you looking for some sort of loophole that allows you to kill new players in the Rookie systems. That's not what I said at all.
I always What is a new player. I want to know what defines it.. Is it X months on the game or what ?
As for how often I get scanned down and my loot stolen from sites there.. it happens about twice a week, but as I said, if you read my posts, I wouldn't consider any of the people that scanned it down "New Players" they are 2-3 months
And for all the jokes about getting a definition.. I have an ISD who said it's 4months, but that was months ago and in no relation to this topic, I have another person saying 3months, CCP only keeps you in Rookie chat for 1 month.. Then others in this thread saying it's if they are flying TechII, or maybe the class of ship they are in..
I spend enough time in Clellinon to know that lots of "rookies" are actually players who's toon is a few years old, from previous times they have played the game..
There are a thousand variations.. I want to know, as the person out there, by what stick I would be judged on. Clearly I don't know the life story of someone I come across..
Prior to this rule change, my "measuring stick" was anyone in a Tech1 standard cruiser and below I considered new and just warned them away.. anyone else I shoot at.. But I see people in Clellinon that are a week old in a Navy Mega, so clearly even under the best case of a rookie being 1 month, I'd still be in the wrong.. or at least be at risk..
Wanting to know the criteria by which the GM's judge isn't too much to ask.. |

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
53
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 23:34:00 -
[67] - Quote
Xython wrote:Karl Hobb wrote:I do know that it is perfectly acceptable to gank someone in a rookie system because I petitioned the action before I did it (******* AFK Hulk drivers...) I can't imagine anyone would seriously try to say "I can't be ganked in my expensive mining barge, I was in a NEWBIE SECTOR", but who knows? Pubbies are dumb. Oh they are out there, and they have petitioned. Hulks are a regular sight in rookie systems, even more so now with all the ganking against them thinking they are protected.. when really they just put a bulleye on them because a lot of Rookie System residents don't care for them stripping the newbies ore.. [ A hulk can strip all of Clellinon in ~2hrs if they have good skills.. ].. Doesn't help that GM's don't seem to care.. and of course once the ore is gone, a lot of the newbies have no idea how to finish the training missions.. Or have to leave to the system next door where they Will be canflipped and otherwise griefed.. |

Killer Gandry
V I R I I Ineluctable.
316
 |
Posted - 2012.04.25 23:45:00 -
[68] - Quote
Sentinel Smith wrote: Wanting to know the criteria by which the GM's judge isn't too much to ask..
Simple. If you kill the player in a Rookie system and you get banned then he was an invalid target.
It's not up to CCP to tag those who are under protection. If you aren't smart enough to figure that out yourselves then you are a real dumbass and deserve the ban.
|

Ismol Mond
Hedion University Amarr Empire
8
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 05:19:00 -
[69] - Quote
Eve is either a sandbox or it's not. There really is no middle ground. The moment devs begin to make exceptions to a fundamental element of a mmorpg they have (historically speaking) made more and more changes that tended to make the mmorpg pretty generic. I know we are getting many players here that are bored of their other games so I guess for some reason it's inevitable that they try and turn this game into what they are used to. That seems to be what most of the posters here want so more power to you. May as well make starter systems pvp free and get it over with. Just take the roids out to make it somewhat fair.
|

Howitzer Bunny
Looney Clones
0
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 06:20:00 -
[70] - Quote
Quote: CCP has made it quite clear they want to bring new players to this game. GM has made it quite clear that new players in the Rookie Systems are not to be messed with.
WTF is so hard to understand about that?
If the 'new' GM rule is don't mess with them at all.
Why is it so hard to get that offical statement in the following sites where the them selfs point at:
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Griefing http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_Systems
This was the question Sentinal Smith asked at the first place at the start of the discussion.
Quote: In general,
"griefing" is a term that means action against another player that makes the target feel like being targeted on purpose or for the sake of harassment only.
In EVE, "griefing" refers to various activities, some of which can be argued not to be "griefing" in the classic sense, but parts of valid gameplay.
There are certain forms of griefing that can get you banned from the game. These include (but probably are not limited to) can baiting in rookie systems and certain forms of verbal harassment.]
The next time the GM might decide if you kill some that is a rookie, but in a "legal" system it's still griefing, because it's a rookie.
The only thing I asked make the rules clear. Not to work around them, but to know where the line is about some of non-war actions. If I want to kill someone we start a War. |
|

Cannibal Kane
Praetorian Cannibals
343
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 06:30:00 -
[71] - Quote
When i see a rookie mining in a rookie system into his little can I leave him be. If a corp of players mining into a can with orca support and a drake bobbing about in the same system for so called protection. You can bet your sweet manly hairy ass I'm making that can mine.
If I get a warning for that, that is a bit ********. The last time I was in a rookie system I had a Navy Apoc and a Oracle on me. I'm not a Pirate, I'm a Terrorist.
The Crazy African |

Othran
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
179
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 06:42:00 -
[72] - Quote
What would be quite simple, easy to understand and would stop people attempting to find ways around the rules is :
No PvP permitted in rookie systems.
There are no reasons for older players to be in rookie systems other than to bump up very low faction standings or to buy skills.
Oh and if you do go there and spot cans on the undock, do us all a favour and petition the tossers who dropped them.
Plenty of places to get fights in Eve, screwing over people in rookie systems isn't necessary.
Edit - oh and if hulks stripping belts are a problem then remove the belts from rookie systems. Any mining which missions require should be instanced. |

Oraac Ensor
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 06:45:00 -
[73] - Quote
Ifly Uwalk wrote:You mean that every time I go to Aki to strip the belts there with my Hulk (as I am wont to do) and some lessthanaday old n00b comes along and steals ALL my stuff with his Ibis of Dewm - I can't even throw out my drones so they insta-pop his sorry a$$ before I can even click "Engage?"
Please mail me with info about where/how I can obtain an Ibis that could do that. It would provide a really nice kickstart for my special edition ships collection. |

Cannibal Kane
Praetorian Cannibals
343
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 06:46:00 -
[74] - Quote
Othran wrote:What would be quite simple, easy to understand and would stop people attempting to find ways around the rules is :
No PvP permitted in rookie systems.
There are no reasons for older players to be in rookie systems other than to bump up very low faction standings or to buy skills.
Oh and if you do go there and spot cans on the undock, do us all a favour and petition the tossers who dropped them.
Plenty of places to get fights in Eve, screwing over people in rookie systems isn't necessary.
Edit - oh and if hulks stripping belts are a problem then remove the belts from rookie systems. Any mining which missions require should be instanced.
Taking cans at the undock from baiters... it hurts them more to kill them than it does to petition them. I'm not a Pirate, I'm a Terrorist.
The Crazy African |

Othran
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
179
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 06:51:00 -
[75] - Quote
Cannibal Kane wrote:
Taking cans at the undock from baiters... it hurts them more to kill them than it does to petition them.
I know its tempting but the problem is that you won't be there to do that all the time. Petition DOES get them hit with the banstick, especially if they have a history of kills in the rookie systems.
Frankly they're just a bunch of tossers who should get permabanned IMO - hell you can simply go next-door to the rookie system and that's fine.
Ganking has its place in Eve, but ganking rookies in rookie ships/crapfit frigates/dessies when they're learning the game is just weak. Hell of a ****** way to pad out killboard stats  |

Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1157
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 06:52:00 -
[76] - Quote
Miilla wrote:Only Rookies have Cookies!
Can rookies not have a training system locked only for them for say, 1 week? or until they complete a training tutorial then the gate is open and they MUST leave that system and we can do what we want then? That way they cannot hide in 1.0 forever.
I want the same for you, get your ass kicked out to null sec. Is it fair enough to you or are you going to find grieffer excuses to justify your mediocre interpretation of how much rookies are important to this game or how long/much should they stay in 1.0 ? |

Sephira Galamore
Nemesis Holdings Corp Luna Sanguinem
11
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 08:44:00 -
[77] - Quote
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 ;) |

Gerald Taric
Adamantium Industry
47
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 09:55:00 -
[78] - Quote
Nephilius wrote:If you are not a rookie, why are you in a rookie system? Greeting a new corp member in personal, which is stil located in a rookie system? Or gifting him some items, which might be helpfull? Or simply company him? |

Zora'e
Nasty Pope
7
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 10:27:00 -
[79] - Quote
I think it is pretty clear myself. CCP has already clarified what they think a Rookie is because after 30 days, you get kicked from the Rookie channel. So.. if the character is under 30 days old, and is in a starter system they are a rookie. Leave them alone. Even if they mess with you. In EVE Online...-a-aA Friend will calm you down when you are angry after getting Ganked.., but a Best Friend will fly along beside you commanding a Strike Group singing "Someones Gonna Get It!!!".-a ~Zora'e |

March rabbit
Trojan Trolls Red Alliance
166
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 11:06:00 -
[80] - Quote
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 let's say: goon in a hauler is not goon? or he is still goon? |
|

Rekon X
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
12
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 11:07:00 -
[81] - Quote
Miilla wrote:Only Rookies have Cookies!
Can rookies not have a training system locked only for them for say, 1 week? or until they complete a training tutorial then the gate is open and they MUST leave that system and we can do what we want then? That way they cannot hide in 1.0 forever.
So your pathetically easy targets are hiding from you? So you are the one this needs to be clarified for. I don't care what you think, if you ever think at all. |

Rekon X
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
12
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 11:09:00 -
[82] - Quote
Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:If its a t2 in a rookie system. its not a rookie. Gack them. Otherwise its still and always has been cut and dry.
OMGWTF, there are 12 rookie systems. Stay the hell out. I don't care what you think, if you ever think at all. |

Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
216
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 12:20:00 -
[83] - Quote
Rekon X wrote:Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:If its a t2 in a rookie system. its not a rookie. Gack them. Otherwise its still and always has been cut and dry. OMGWTF, there are 12 rookie systems. Stay the hell out.
rookie system doesn't mean safe haven f y i eh |

Rekon X
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
14
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 12:26:00 -
[84] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Rekon X wrote:Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:If its a t2 in a rookie system. its not a rookie. Gack them. Otherwise its still and always has been cut and dry. OMGWTF, there are 12 rookie systems. Stay the hell out. rookie system doesn't mean safe haven f y i
Most areas offer reading comprehension classes. I don't care what you think, if you ever think at all. |

Killer Gandry
V I R I I Ineluctable.
316
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 13:24:00 -
[85] - Quote
Why NOT to make rookie systems PvP free systems?
Simple. Because then people who want to avoid getting killed can hop in there and be safe.
If you can't distinguish the difference between a hulk and an Ibis or even magnate by a few day old character then EVE is NOT the game for you. If you require exact and precise tags on what's a rookie and what's not then EVE is NOT the game for you. If you want CCP to find the borders of what is acceptable and what isn't then EVE is NOT the game for you.
On one side people complain thatCCP holds new players, and carebear hands too much and on the other side they need a hand held to guide them through what is possible and what isn't
Learn to read the rules and regulations and if in doubt then petition or mail CCP about getting an exact clarification. Anything not covered under the rules and which can't be classified as exploit or bug is free gameplay untill deemed otherwise.
This is a simple reality in any MMO out there.
|

Cloned S0ul
Blood Fanatics
12
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 13:30:00 -
[86] - Quote
How people dare grief newbis,really phatetic behaviour, this is almost same behavoir like giving lollipop to small kid and take it back, i hate those people.
One year ago i was in rooki system and i saw some phatetic guy in traranis baiting newbis. so i fit kamikaze rupture and i give to him my alpha strike he was almost rip sadly i forget owerload my guns and he dock with around 4% on hull, but i got satisfaction he got weet pants ;) |

Anya Klibor
Malum Crusis
71
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 13:32:00 -
[87] - Quote
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.
My corporation dec'd another corporation that bases out of Clell. If we get a fight there and pop them, can we expect them to be able to petition for "picking on them" even though they are in no way, shape, or form "rookies"? |

Othran
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
183
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 13:39:00 -
[88] - Quote
Killer Gandry wrote:Why NOT to make rookie systems PvP free systems?
Simple. Because then people who want to avoid getting killed can hop in there and be safe.
Indeed. There are flaws with any system however a nice clear instruction would be helpful.
You could even modify it to say :
No PvP permitted in the 12 rookie systems unless it is between player corps. If one of the aggressors/aggressed is in a NPC corp then the banstick WILL be used. No excuses permitted.
There shouldn't be any asteroid belts in npc systems anyway. Mining "training" should be the same as combat "training" - instanced.
Its the same people who do it time and again anyway. A quick look at people not in npc corps in rookie systems indicates a significant number of them have kills in rookie systems on eve-kill/battleclinic. I just got an alt to look in Hadaugago and there's a guy in there who has over 90 kills of rookie players in the Minmatar rookie systems alone.
CCP need to make the warning about rookie systems a LOT more public, a LOT more specific (no weasel words) and they need to actively police it.
Either that or stop wasting everyone's time on the matter and ignore it, which is what they largely do now.
I'll leave this thread to the people who will try to argue that ganking the crap out of shitfit ships with pilots who couldn't find their way to the nearest trade hub is a good idea for Eve's longevity  |

Killer Gandry
V I R I I Ineluctable.
316
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 16:07:00 -
[89] - Quote
Anya Klibor 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. My corporation dec'd another corporation that bases out of Clell. If we get a fight there and pop them, can we expect them to be able to petition for "picking on them" even though they are in no way, shape, or form "rookies"?
Try to graps the concept that there is a difference between Rookie and Rookie system. If you are too daft to grasp that then please do us all a favour and uninstall the game. You are clearly not able to understand basic game mechanics and are therefor not EVE material. |

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
58
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 16:12:00 -
[90] - Quote
Killer Gandry wrote:Try to graps the concept that there is a difference between Rookie and Rookie system. If you are too daft to grasp that then please do us all a favour and uninstall the game. You are clearly not able to understand basic game mechanics and are therefor not EVE material. Lots of Rookies join player corps almost right away, for better or worse.. So what about a week old player in a Player corp in a Rookie system that's a valid WT ? Or even not a valid WT, but just someone in a corp that your corp routinely fights with ? |
|

Killer Gandry
V I R I I Ineluctable.
316
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 16:18:00 -
[91] - Quote
Sentinel Smith wrote: Lots of Rookies join player corps almost right away, for better or worse.. So what about a week old player in a Player corp in a Rookie system that's a valid WT ? Or even not a valid WT, but just someone in a corp that your corp routinely fights with ?
If someone is in a corp I don't see them as rookie anymore. If they are valid wartargets then I pop them. I can easy defend my stance then towards CCP. If it's a corporation founded by rookies and only has rookies in it I don't dec them till they are a month or so in the game. If they dec me it's their own doing and as such become valid targets.
How hard is the whole concept for you people? Are you really that daft as to need a handheld manual as what is possible and what not?
|

Orlacc
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
127
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 16:39:00 -
[92] - Quote
Cannibal Kane wrote:When i see a rookie mining in a rookie system into his little can I leave him be. If a corp of players mining into a can with orca support and a drake bobbing about in the same system for so called protection. You can bet your sweet manly hairy ass I'm making that can mine.
If I get a warning for that, that is a bit ********. The last time I was in a rookie system I had a Navy Apoc and a Oracle on me.
Why are you in a rookie system in the first place?
|

Spurty
D00M. Northern Coalition.
237
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 16:55:00 -
[93] - Quote
Cavel Avada wrote:Lot of reading comprehension fails in this thread. OP clearly said she's NOT actively griefing newbs, but wants to know if it's ok to kill a newb who does something that deserves it (like stealing her stuff whens he's minding her own business).
Seems like a valid question to me.
if you have your *STUFF* out in a rookie system, you are a baiter (or just lowering the average IQ).
Ban stick and *NAH NAH NAH NAH* hands in my ears, no one wants to hear your tears.
Want to blow stuff up, go to null. It's there for a reason (So are starter systems).
---- CONCORD arrested two n00bs yesterday, one was drinking battery acid, the other was eating fireworks. They charged one and let the other one off. |

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
58
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 16:55:00 -
[94] - Quote
Killer Gandry wrote: How hard is the whole concept for you people? Are you really that daft as to need a handheld manual as what is possible and what not?
The concept is simple.. But I've hard enough dealings with GM's, as have others, to know what makes perfect sense to us, doesn't to them..
Hell Case in point, CCP Removing non-corpmembers access to the Corp hanger on an Orca.. Made sense to GM Greyscale so much so it wasn't even a topic for discussion, not so much to most people who use their Orca for, you know, mining and such.
It's best to just remove the grey area all together.
As you said, YOU don't see them as a rookie anymore.. GM might disagree, and there you are, warned, or banned for a week.
Common sense isn't as common as you think.. Even with the rules in place, I have petitioned probably 50 different people for baiting and flipping in Rookie Systems since the new year.. And countless more I warned [ what can I say, I always give them a chance to stop on their own, as long as I didn't see them pop a noob yet ] away before petitioning.. Most had no idea of the rules.. Several had no idea they were in a rookie system.. They just jumped around and found a busy system with easy targets and had no clue.. Now I'm not giving them a pass.. They Should know where they are. They Should know what the rules are.. But now that the rules aren't as black and white before, it's inevitable that people are going to get caught in grey areas. I just want to make those areas as small as can be. I don't want someones fate to be decided based on which specific GM happens to be on, or his mood at the time. |

Jerick Ludhowe
Resurrection Ninjas.
61
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 16:58:00 -
[95] - Quote
Ismol Mond wrote:Eve is either a sandbox or it's not. There really is no middle ground. The moment devs begin to make exceptions to a fundamental element of a mmorpg they have (historically speaking) made more and more changes that tended to make the mmorpg pretty generic. I know we are getting many players here that are bored of their other games so I guess for some reason it's inevitable that they try and turn this game into what they are used to. That seems to be what most of the posters here want so more power to you. May as well make starter systems pvp free and get it over with. Just take the roids out to make it somewhat fair.
it's not a sandbox anymore, the ability to buy plex with rl cash put an end to that years ago. This is the reason I lol every time ccp uses the term "sandbox" in their marketing schemes.
|

SenshiMaru
Idiots In Spaceships Psychotic Tendencies.
3
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 17:05:00 -
[96] - Quote
9/10 OP |

Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
15
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 17:16:00 -
[97] - Quote
If a rookie has taken your items from your home system which happens to be a system where new players start then by all emans shoot him. Its not as if rookies have much to lose anyway.
If you get banned you can always argue the GM ban via escalation to someone higher up in CCP. Sometimes the GM's interpretation of the rules leave a lot to be desired although maybe their training might also be thus. |

Shea Valerien
House of Valerien
12
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 17:30:00 -
[98] - Quote
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.
Love that CCP is taking this approach. Ganking rookies is a pretty sad statement about how a person gets their kicks. More players = healthier Eve. Those rookies today = active veterans tomorrow.
To be fair, though, I'm not exactly sure what qualifies as a "rookie." |

Doc Severide
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
63
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 17:44:00 -
[99] - Quote
Nephilius wrote:If you are not a rookie, why are you in a rookie system? It's quite simple. When I started playing and acquiring things I kept them in my station. Now I have a large amout of items piled up and I don't want or need the hassle to move it all. I have stuff in 0.0 but I only take what for me is the bare minimum incase I have to abandon it. So after 4 years, a rookie system is still my "home base"... |

Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
31
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 18:03:00 -
[100] - Quote
Rekon X wrote:there are 12 rookie systems
24 rookie systems: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_Systems
But that is still just a drop in this universe. There is a lot more systems people can do their baiting if it floats their boats. |
|

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
259
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 19:00:00 -
[101] - Quote
But what if somebody is hulk jet can mining to help rookies earn isk?
Are you saying we can no longer help rookies in their starter systems? |

ian papabear
The Syndicate Inc En Garde
2
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 19:04:00 -
[102] - Quote
okay so i get the "dont mess with the rookies period" point, but is pvp still allowed in the system? like for example can you pvp with someone who isnt a rookie in that system?
I dont pvp in rookie systems but when i would go to them i would see people pvping outside the staton who arent rookies http://www.youtube.com/iwasnamedian |

Zleon Leigh
115
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 19:10:00 -
[103] - Quote
Miilla wrote:But what if somebody is hulk jet can mining to help rookies earn isk?
Are you saying we can no longer help rookies in their starter systems?
Are you saying you're not turning the cans blue? 'Cause if you aren't sounds like you're baiting....
Incarna - Newest business example of mismanaged capital.
CCP - Continuing to gank independent PI producers every day |

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
259
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 19:12:00 -
[104] - Quote
Zleon Leigh wrote:Miilla wrote:But what if somebody is hulk jet can mining to help rookies earn isk?
Are you saying we can no longer help rookies in their starter systems? Are you saying you're not turning the cans blue? 'Cause if you aren't sounds like you're baiting....
I set their name to "Abandoned Container". *chews bubblegum looking clueless* |

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
259
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 19:14:00 -
[105] - Quote
Zleon Leigh wrote:Miilla wrote:But what if somebody is hulk jet can mining to help rookies earn isk?
Are you saying we can no longer help rookies in their starter systems? Are you saying you're not turning the cans blue? 'Cause if you aren't sounds like you're baiting....
What if I am really seriously jetcan mining and have it named "DO NOT TOUCH". and then they steal it? They after all have learnt how to be a pirate, not my fault. *shrugs* |

Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1160
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 19:17:00 -
[106] - Quote
What a griefer this Milia... 
|
|

GM Homonoia
Game Masters C C P Alliance
604

 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 20:13:00 -
[107] - Quote
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'. Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master |
|

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
259
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 20:14:00 -
[108] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote: The rule is "do not mess with rookies", and if you are in doubt the answer is ALWAYS 'do not do it'.
What if the Rookies mess with us? What if they shoot us? can we shoot back? etc etc, That means WAR surely? |
|

GM Homonoia
Game Masters C C P Alliance
604

 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 20:19:00 -
[109] - Quote
ian papabear wrote:okay so i get the "dont mess with the rookies period" point, but is pvp still allowed in the system? like for example can you pvp with someone who isnt a rookie in that system?
I dont pvp in rookie systems but when i would go to them i would see people pvping outside the staton who arent rookies
Yes, you can still PvP there. You cannot mess with the rookies there, what you do to other people is your own business. Note that dropping your property into space in a rookie system is not a bright idea. If a rookie gets curious ad takes from the can you had better not shoot him. You do not want a rookie to nab your stuff, do not drop the stuff in a rookie system. Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master |
|

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
259
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 20:25:00 -
[110] - Quote
Define a rookie? 1 week old? 1 month old? There has to be a limit, where is it? |
|

Steijn
Quay Industries
43
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 20:26:00 -
[111] - Quote
Avid Bumhumper wrote:I'm not sure admitting your an incompetent player that can only handle noobs is something you want to post here..... 
im not sure admitting you dont have the intelligence to understand what Sentinel is saying is something you want to post here either. |

Jonah Gravenstein
208
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 20:35:00 -
[112] - Quote
I keep seeing people asking what older players are doing in rookie systems, my answer is MYOB.
I have a trade character, based 2 jumps out of a rookie system, I buy a lot of stuff in that rookie system, I sell a lot of stuff in that rookie system, I also give away a lot of stuff in that rookie system. As long as I'm not shooting at rookies it's nobodies business but my own as to what I'm doing there.
TL;DR for the rest of the thread, if they're not a WT, not can baiting or in anything that's obviously capable of being used by a noob don't shoot at them. War hasn't been fought this badly since Olaf the Hairy, High Chief of all the Vikings, accidentally ordered 80,000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside. |

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
59
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 21:16:00 -
[113] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote: 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. Reckless is vague, like Mess with. Given.
But the law defines what Driving is :p So should it define a Rookie imho.
And honestly.. if you want to protect Rookies, the Rookie systems idea is flawed. What should be done is some way to flag them, like give them a Blue icon [ Red is evil, Yellow did some time, Green if your corpmate.. Blue can be Rookie ] .. And make them protected in all of Highsec. A few training missions themselves have newbies leaving the "safety" of a rookie system, not to mention you have to go from the Starter system to the Career Agent system, where I have seen baitcans on the gates along that route before.
So give them serious protection. Make it so for them to get Aggro [ aka stealing, providing RR, etc. ] they have to jump through hoops and give up the rookie protection.. rather than just a single warning popup that apparently 90% of newbies hit okay too without reading lol..
This would give them, say, 30 days [ Same amount of time you are in Rookie Help ] of protection everywhere in highsec. And give all other players a visual indication not to mess with them.
|

Zleon Leigh
115
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 21:26:00 -
[114] - Quote
Sentinel Smith wrote:GM Homonoia wrote: 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. Reckless is vague, like Mess with. Given. But the law defines what Driving is :p So should it define a Rookie imho. And honestly.. if you want to protect Rookies, the Rookie systems idea is flawed. What should be done is some way to flag them, like give them a Blue icon [ Red is evil, Yellow did some time, Green if your corpmate.. Blue can be Rookie ] .. And make them protected in all of Highsec. A few training missions themselves have newbies leaving the "safety" of a rookie system, not to mention you have to go from the Starter system to the Career Agent system, where I have seen baitcans on the gates along that route before. So give them serious protection. Make it so for them to get Aggro [ aka stealing, providing RR, etc. ] they have to jump through hoops and give up the rookie protection.. rather than just a single warning popup that apparently 90% of newbies hit okay too without reading lol.. This would give them, say, 30 days [ Same amount of time you are in Rookie Help ] of protection everywhere in highsec. And give all other players a visual indication not to mess with them.
Blue Light Special! 
Agreed.
How about the "blue classification" runs out the same time the training bonus does? Nullified by system sec status - if you are not in Empire all bets are off (and you get a popup when leaving anyways.) Failure to follow warnings is at the risk of the user. Incarna - Newest business example of mismanaged capital.
CCP - Continuing to gank independent PI producers every day |

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
59
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 21:33:00 -
[115] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:Note that dropping your property into space in a rookie system is not a bright idea. If a rookie gets curious ad takes from the can you had better not shoot him. You do not want a rookie to nab your stuff, do not drop the stuff in a rookie system.
I missed this the first time.
This statement seems to contradict http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_Systems and http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Griefing .
Quote:Warning: Can Flipping in Rookie Systems is considered Griefing.
Quote:Can flipping / baiting
This refers to the practice of (ab)using the Criminal Flagging System to cause a fight between yourself and an unsuspecting party in high-security space. See main article for more.
Can flipping is officially considered griefing only in Rookie Systems. Some people do it just for fun, without the actual intent to cause the feelings of harassment and frustration in the victim. It is, however, also a typical form of griefing in the classic sense.
Which makes a blanket statement, that doesn't separate Rookies from Experienced players.
Does your statement means Baiting and Flipping is now allowed, providing you don't kill Rookies ? |

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
259
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 21:37:00 -
[116] - Quote
Define a Rookie, we need a clear definition. Surely a Hulk player in 1.0 rookie system is NOT a rookie. or a 1 or 2 month old player is NOT a rookie. |

Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
669
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 21:40:00 -
[117] - Quote
Sentinel Smith wrote:GM Homonoia wrote: 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. Reckless is vague, like Mess with. Given. But the law defines what Driving is :p So should it define a Rookie imho. And honestly.. if you want to protect Rookies, the Rookie systems idea is flawed. What should be done is some way to flag them, like give them a Blue icon [ Red is evil, Yellow did some time, Green if your corpmate.. Blue can be Rookie ] .. And make them protected in all of Highsec. A few training missions themselves have newbies leaving the "safety" of a rookie system, not to mention you have to go from the Starter system to the Career Agent system, where I have seen baitcans on the gates along that route before. So give them serious protection. Make it so for them to get Aggro [ aka stealing, providing RR, etc. ] they have to jump through hoops and give up the rookie protection.. rather than just a single warning popup that apparently 90% of newbies hit okay too without reading lol.. This would give them, say, 30 days [ Same amount of time you are in Rookie Help ] of protection everywhere in highsec. And give all other players a visual indication not to mess with them. Some people think I'm kind of a degenerate for the way I approach piracy. I loot wrecks and salvage them at fights I'm not involved in, and mainly prey on haulers (and cyno frigs when I'm bored). If people come ready to fight I typically run. It's fine... the world needs bottom feeders too.
I feel a lot better knowing there are rungs on the food chain beneath even me. Why do you even care about rookies? They have no ISK, they have lame noob ships and T1 frigs, never drop anything remotely decent, and don't even know how to fly around in space let along fight. It's moronic to mess with them. Congrats, Sentinel Smith... you are the biggest looser.
|

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
259
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 21:43:00 -
[118] - Quote
Wait, isn't Jita a rookie system? |

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
59
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 21:44:00 -
[119] - Quote
Gogela wrote: Some people think I'm kind of a degenerate for the way I approach piracy. I loot wrecks and salvage them at fights I'm not involved in, and mainly prey on haulers (and cyno frigs when I'm bored). If people come ready to fight I typically run. It's fine... the world needs bottom feeders too.
I feel a lot better knowing there are rungs on the food chain beneath even me. Why do you even care about rookies? They have no ISK, they have lame noob ships and T1 frigs, never drop anything remotely decent, and don't even know how to fly around in space let alone fight. It's moronic to mess with them. Congrats, Sentinel Smith... you are the biggest looser.
My post suggesting a foolproof no loopholes no greyarea way to protect them in All Highsec systems makes me a looser ?
Noted. |

Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
669
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 21:47:00 -
[120] - Quote
Miilla wrote:Wait, isn't Jita a rookie system? Show up Saturday and see if it looks like a rookie system. Long answer: no. Jita is the most dangerous high sec system.
|
|

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
259
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 21:49:00 -
[121] - Quote
Gogela wrote:Miilla wrote:Wait, isn't Jita a rookie system? Show up Saturday and see if it looks like a rookie system. Long answer: no. Jita is the most dangerous high sec system.
So it's a Cookie system :) |

Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
669
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 21:51:00 -
[122] - Quote
Miilla wrote:Gogela wrote:Miilla wrote:Wait, isn't Jita a rookie system? Show up Saturday and see if it looks like a rookie system. Long answer: no. Jita is the most dangerous high sec system. So it's a Cookie system :) That's a good way to put it  
|

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
259
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 21:54:00 -
[123] - Quote
Gogela wrote:Miilla wrote:Gogela wrote:Miilla wrote:Wait, isn't Jita a rookie system? Show up Saturday and see if it looks like a rookie system. Long answer: no. Jita is the most dangerous high sec system. So it's a Cookie system :) That's a good way to put it  
Well, I guess I should sell tickets, I can park a few account toons in there and get isk to log off to free up a slot as it is limited :)
|

Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
669
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 21:57:00 -
[124] - Quote
Miilla wrote:Gogela wrote:Miilla wrote:Gogela wrote:Miilla wrote:Wait, isn't Jita a rookie system? Show up Saturday and see if it looks like a rookie system. Long answer: no. Jita is the most dangerous high sec system. So it's a Cookie system :) That's a good way to put it   Well, I guess I should sell tickets, I can park a few account toons in there and get isk to log off to free up a slot as it is limited :) LOL! Good luck with that. The rumor mill suggests Jita is getting reinforced tomorrow through the weekend. I think we'll be looking at a new jita record on saturday or sunday. 5000+ would not surprise me in the least.
Edit: Time Dilated jita... we're gonna party like it's 2003...
|

Sigurd Sig Hansen
Hedion University Amarr Empire
53
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 22:33:00 -
[125] - Quote
Sentinel Smith wrote:
I guess in the future I'll just make a petition when I have a question for the GM's.. Clearly most would rather assume that anyone who wants to know the rules is trying to subvert them..
uh yeah well it IS EVE after all... Cant really say more than that to make it clearer
Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game |

Sigurd Sig Hansen
Hedion University Amarr Empire
53
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 22:38:00 -
[126] - Quote
Gogela wrote:Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:[quote=hakkiew365]*snip* a sociopathic rush? rofl *snip* Sociopaths don't get a "rush" of any kind. That's what makes them sociopaths.
Psychopathic rush?
Yes as I understand it its just when the sociopath or rather those with anti social personality disorder (as I understand it sociopath isnt the correct term anymore) cant talk themselves out of doint it. AND they dont have remorse or conscience. See the TV show Dexter
Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game |

Sigurd Sig Hansen
Hedion University Amarr Empire
53
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 22:46:00 -
[127] - Quote
ugh I have to triple post cause "theres too many quotes"
Gogela wrote:Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:hakkiew365 wrote:*snip* a sociopathic rush? rofl *snip* Sociopaths don't get a "rush" of any kind. That's what makes them sociopaths. Psychopathic rush? Yes as I understand it its just when the sociopath or rather those with anti social personality disorder (as I understand it sociopath isnt the correct term anymore) cant talk themselves out of doint it. AND they dont have remorse or conscience. See the TV show Dexter GM Homonoia wrote:[quote=ian papabear]okay so i get the "dont mess with the rookies period" point, but is pvp still allowed in the system? like for example can you pvp with someone who isnt a rookie in that system?
I dont pvp in rookie systems but when i would go to them i would see people pvping outside the staton who arent rookies Yes, you can still PvP there. You cannot mess with the rookies there, what you do to other people is your own business. Note that dropping your property into space in a rookie system is not a bright idea. If a rookie gets curious ad takes from the can you had better not shoot him. You do not want a rookie to nab your stuff, do not drop the stuff in a rookie system.
Man youd swear the ppl in this game are idiots for not being able to follow so simple a command as "dont mess with them" But no I realize its not them being stupid that it is in fact every bit of them thinking they're smart for looking for a loophole so they can grief the noob players and say "GM HOMONIA SED WE KULD DO IT!!!!"
and its because of ppl like that you wont GET a specific answer.
Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game |

Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
669
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 22:47:00 -
[128] - Quote
Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:Gogela wrote:Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:[quote=hakkiew365]*snip* a sociopathic rush? rofl *snip* Sociopaths don't get a "rush" of any kind. That's what makes them sociopaths. Psychopathic rush? Yes as I understand it its just when the sociopath or rather those with anti social personality disorder (as I understand it sociopath isnt the correct term anymore) cant talk themselves out of doint it. AND they dont have remorse or conscience. See the TV show Dexter There's a difference between a compulsion/obsession and emotion. American Psycho vs Dexter. I got 20 on Patrick Bateman.
|

supersexysucker
Uber Awesome Fantastico Awesomeness Group Ayn Sof Aur
82
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 22:50:00 -
[129] - Quote
CCP sadbox kinda.
lol anyone who gets ganked in a hauler should petition CCP and say HEY IM STILL LEARNING I TOOK A BREAK lul.
Whos up for making trail accounts and can flipping in noob sysytems just because of CCPS dumb rule? |

Sigurd Sig Hansen
Hedion University Amarr Empire
53
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 22:51:00 -
[130] - Quote
Gogela wrote:Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:Gogela wrote:Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:[quote=hakkiew365]*snip* a sociopathic rush? rofl *snip* Sociopaths don't get a "rush" of any kind. That's what makes them sociopaths. Psychopathic rush? Yes as I understand it its just when the sociopath or rather those with anti social personality disorder (as I understand it sociopath isnt the correct term anymore) cant talk themselves out of doint it. AND they dont have remorse or conscience. See the TV show Dexter There's a difference between a compulsion/obsession and emotion. American Psycho vs Dexter. I got 20 on Patrick Bateman.
Didnt say anything about emotion lol Rush =/= an emotional release. Just like how certain serial killers replace sex with murder cause thats the only way they can get the thrill.
this conversation is getting way off topic and creepy lol
Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game |
|

Sigurd Sig Hansen
Hedion University Amarr Empire
55
 |
Posted - 2012.04.26 23:54:00 -
[131] - Quote
supersexysucker wrote:CCP sadbox kinda.
lol anyone who gets ganked in a hauler should petition CCP and say HEY IM STILL LEARNING I TOOK A BREAK lul.
Whos up for making trail accounts and can flipping in noob sysytems just because of CCPS dumb rule?
Im sorry, if you cant see the reasoning behind this rule, noone can... just do the rest of us a favor and go break it -.-
Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game |

supersexysucker
Uber Awesome Fantastico Awesomeness Group Ayn Sof Aur
82
 |
Posted - 2012.04.27 02:23:00 -
[132] - Quote
Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:supersexysucker wrote:CCP sadbox kinda.
lol anyone who gets ganked in a hauler should petition CCP and say HEY IM STILL LEARNING I TOOK A BREAK lul.
Whos up for making trail accounts and can flipping in noob sysytems just because of CCPS dumb rule? Im sorry, if you cant see the reasoning behind this rule, noone can... just do the rest of us a favor and go break it -.-
To stop nubs from rage quitting?
Cause when you gank them in 30 days... they won't?
Got news for ya... when I started playing it was around x-mas with the snow ball launchers... I was like a day old... guy started shooting me with it... I shot back got blowed up...
O **** IM STILL HERE... so anyone again the reason?
Learned about concord really fast.
Should I cry to CCP about a guy killing a like 2 day old via something CCP gave them? |

Astrid Stjerna
Underking Family
659
 |
Posted - 2012.04.27 10:37:00 -
[133] - Quote
Sentinel Smith wrote: Does your statement means Baiting and Flipping is now allowed, providing you don't kill Rookies ?
What Homonoia said was along the lines of 'better safe than sorry': dropping a can in a rookie system, even if it's a perfectly innocent and legitimate cargo transfer, can be misinterpreted as an attempt to can-bait, so it's probably better to wait until you're docked and do it manually.
If you do drop a legitimate can and someone does scoop your cargo, don't shoot them, because by the letter of the law, that's still considered can-baiting. I can't get rid of my darn signature!-a Oh, wait.... |

Rekon X
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
16
 |
Posted - 2012.04.27 11:07:00 -
[134] - Quote
Orlacc wrote: Why are you in a rookie system in the first place?
Simple I don't care what you think, if you ever think at all. |

Rekon X
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
16
 |
Posted - 2012.04.27 11:11:00 -
[135] - Quote
Miilla wrote:Define a rookie? 1 week old? 1 month old? There has to be a limit, where is it?
Seems this one is looking hard for a way to gank rookies.
Can not get any more pathetic than that.
What if.... What if.... What if....
What are you 2? I don't care what you think, if you ever think at all. |

Durzel
The Xenodus Initiative.
9
 |
Posted - 2012.04.27 11:48:00 -
[136] - Quote
Really don't understand how this is even of interest to anyone who isn't either covertly or overtly looking to pop rookies.
"The rules don't concern me because I don't pop rookies, but I'm really interested anyway"
Cmon... |

Gerald Taric
Adamantium Industry
47
 |
Posted - 2012.04.27 14:53:00 -
[137] - Quote
Miilla wrote:Define a Rookie, we need a clear definition. Surely a Hulk player in 1.0 rookie system is NOT a rookie. or a 1 or 2 month old player is NOT a rookie. The answer can be found in this posting, but not in the way you want it to be: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1198726#post1198726
In short: Obviously there's intentionally no hard definition. Use common sense and if in doubt, assume the pilot in question being a rookie. Otherwise take the risk of being wrong.
|

Sigurd Sig Hansen
Hedion University Amarr Empire
66
 |
Posted - 2012.04.27 15:07:00 -
[138] - Quote
Rekon X wrote:Miilla wrote:Define a rookie? 1 week old? 1 month old? There has to be a limit, where is it? Seems this one is looking hard for a way to gank rookies. Can not get any more pathetic than that. What if.... What if.... What if.... What are you 2?
No, just a typical EVE ganker trying to find a loophole and being frustrated by the GM refusing to give one
Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game |

Velicitia
Open Designs
885
 |
Posted - 2012.04.27 15:16:00 -
[139] - Quote
supersexysucker wrote:Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:supersexysucker wrote:CCP sadbox kinda.
lol anyone who gets ganked in a hauler should petition CCP and say HEY IM STILL LEARNING I TOOK A BREAK lul.
Whos up for making trail accounts and can flipping in noob sysytems just because of CCPS dumb rule? Im sorry, if you cant see the reasoning behind this rule, noone can... just do the rest of us a favor and go break it -.- To stop nubs from rage quitting? Cause when you gank them in 30 days... they won't? Got news for ya... when I started playing it was around x-mas with the snow ball launchers... I was like a day old... guy started shooting me with it... I shot back got blowed up... O **** IM STILL HERE... so anyone again the reason? Learned about concord really fast. Should I cry to CCP about a guy killing a like 2 day old via something CCP gave them?
CCP, BRING BACK SNOWBALLS!!! |

Duvida
The Scope Gallente Federation
63
 |
Posted - 2012.04.27 17:21:00 -
[140] - Quote
supersexysucker wrote:CCP sadbox kinda.
lol anyone who gets ganked in a hauler should petition CCP and say HEY IM STILL LEARNING I TOOK A BREAK lul.
Whos up for making trail accounts and can flipping in noob sysytems just because of CCPS dumb rule?
If it's an experienced player in a Hulk (check the training time for a Hulk, it isn't going to be a new player driving that, right?) and you are running a new alt... well, that Hulk shouldn't be attacking new players. I guess it's a risk older players take when trying to hide in newbie systems.
But getting angry and trying to get a rule loophole that allows the griefing of a brand new player, even in the name of 'insert self-righteous cause here', is pretty image destroying. Unless you wanted to have the image of someone that picks on the 1-year-old in the yard because the 2-year-olds are already at 25 pounds and can beat you up, that is. Just FYI 
|
|
|

CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
1243

 |
Posted - 2012.04.27 23:50:00 -
[141] - Quote
Off topic posts removed. Please stay on topic and constructive, thank you. CCP Phantom - German Community Coordinator |
|

SghnDubh
BattleClinic
3
 |
Posted - 2012.05.02 00:37:00 -
[142] - Quote
Makes me want to add a tag to my killboards.
If you show up as the aggressor in a noob system, and the pilot has less than 6 months ingame, you'll get a bully badge. And it may not really be the kind of badge you want people to see.
Just thinking out loud, so to speak... |

Sigurd Sig Hansen
Hedion University Amarr Empire
93
 |
Posted - 2012.05.02 02:16:00 -
[143] - Quote
SghnDubh wrote: Makes me want to add a tag to my killboards.
If you show up as the aggressor in a noob system, and the pilot has less than 6 months ingame, you'll get a bully badge. And it may not really be the kind of badge you want people to see.
Just thinking out loud, so to speak...
If you shoot someone an kill em in the noob system an they're a noob, youll get a ban badge.
Just thinking out loud, so to speak...
Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game |

Ris Dnalor
Black Rebel Rifter Club
286
 |
Posted - 2012.05.02 03:57:00 -
[144] - Quote
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.
first thing I did when I started eve was attack one of those NPC cargo ships that travel from station to station.... I didn't realize it was NPC at the time. It kicked my never-docked-in-it's life noob ship's buttox.
The second thing I did was undock in another noob ship and find a real player to attack. They also kicked my ass.
Perhaps I'm not the typical new player. However, I don't believe I'm the only one that would ever try to do such a thing. In my case, I wasn't upset that they kicked my butt, in fact I expected it.
Personally I don't think there's a better time to let new players know that there is no safe place in eve, than before they subscribe.
This false sense of security you give them only breeds resentment when they ultimately do get ganked in high sec. BUT... because you've protected them while it would be relatively in-expensive, they are surprised when they lose millions or even billions.
Eve players don't need to be molly-coddled. And players that need to have their hand held simply aren't going to like Eve as it is. That's something you really should come to terms with, and either accept it or change Eve.
... |

Ris Dnalor
Black Rebel Rifter Club
286
 |
Posted - 2012.05.02 04:00:00 -
[145] - Quote
Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:SghnDubh wrote: Makes me want to add a tag to my killboards.
If you show up as the aggressor in a noob system, and the pilot has less than 6 months ingame, you'll get a bully badge. And it may not really be the kind of badge you want people to see.
Just thinking out loud, so to speak...
If you shoot someone an kill em in the noob system an they're a noob, youll get a ban badge. Just thinking out loud, so to speak...
Phineas T. Barnum wrote:There is no such thing as bad publicity ... |

Ris Dnalor
Black Rebel Rifter Club
286
 |
Posted - 2012.05.02 04:06:00 -
[146] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:ian papabear wrote:okay so i get the "dont mess with the rookies period" point, but is pvp still allowed in the system? like for example can you pvp with someone who isnt a rookie in that system?
I dont pvp in rookie systems but when i would go to them i would see people pvping outside the staton who arent rookies Yes, you can still PvP there. You cannot mess with the rookies there, what you do to other people is your own business. Note that dropping your property into space in a rookie system is not a bright idea. If a rookie gets curious ad takes from the can you had better not shoot him. You do not want a rookie to nab your stuff, do not drop the stuff in a rookie system.
What if we bait someone we're mentoring... strictly as part of the mentoring process?  ... |

DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1885
 |
Posted - 2012.05.02 04:33:00 -
[147] - Quote
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. first thing I did when I started eve was attack one of those NPC cargo ships that travel from station to station.... I didn't realize it was NPC at the time. It kicked my never-docked-in-it's life noob ship's buttox. The second thing I did was undock in another noob ship and find a real player to attack. They also kicked my ass. Perhaps I'm not the typical new player. However, I don't believe I'm the only one that would ever try to do such a thing. In my case, I wasn't upset that they kicked my butt, in fact I expected it. Personally I don't think there's a better time to let new players know that there is no safe place in eve, than before they subscribe. This false sense of security you give them only breeds resentment when they ultimately do get ganked in high sec. BUT... because you've protected them while it would be relatively in-expensive, they are surprised when they lose millions or even billions. Eve players don't need to be molly-coddled. And players that need to have their hand held simply aren't going to like Eve as it is. That's something you really should come to terms with, and either accept it or change Eve. First off, you were the one who initiated those attacks and got what you deserved.
Secondly, new players in the rookie systems only have a limited amount of missions they can run for those agents.
Thirdly, those agents are teaching new players how to interact with the various aspects of the game.
Last but not least, when those new players do leave the rookie system, they won't be rich or flying millions or billions worth of equipment. As soon as they leave the rookie systems, they probably already know the griefers mantra and if not, they quickly learn 'there's no safe place in Eve'.
Bottom line: Just leave the new players alone, there is more than enough other experienced players in-game for you to duel. |
|

GM Zerat
Game Masters C C P Alliance
11

 |
Posted - 2012.05.02 07:17:00 -
[148] - Quote
There is currently a blanket ban on can baiting in rookie systems, I just wanted to bring that up as many players make this mistake.
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_Systems Warning: Can Flipping in Rookie Systems is considered Griefing.
So if you are thinking about can baiting only older players in those systems, please do not. |
|

Fannie Maes
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
113
 |
Posted - 2012.05.02 07:40:00 -
[149] - Quote
The GM's have answered OP twice making it perfectly clear, if you still don't get it by now then goodbye and it was nice knowing you... |

Gorki Andropov
Kerensky Initiatives
337
 |
Posted - 2012.05.02 07:46:00 -
[150] - Quote
SghnDubh wrote: Makes me want to add a tag to my killboards.
If you show up as the aggressor in a noob system, and the pilot has less than 6 months ingame, you'll get a bully badge. And it may not really be the kind of badge you want people to see.
Just thinking out loud, so to speak...
I would think a 'manipulator' tag might be more appropriate, given how easy it is to mess with your awesome killboards. |
|

Gorki Andropov
Kerensky Initiatives
337
 |
Posted - 2012.05.02 07:47:00 -
[151] - Quote
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'.
A quick question - what if rookies take the can, fully aware and armed with the knowledge of what will happen? In other words, if you label the can 'IF YOU TAKE FROM THIS CAN, OTHER PLAYERS WILL ATTACK YOU'? |

Shea Valerien
House of Valerien
16
 |
Posted - 2012.05.02 19:20:00 -
[152] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:ian papabear wrote:okay so i get the "dont mess with the rookies period" point, but is pvp still allowed in the system? like for example can you pvp with someone who isnt a rookie in that system?
I dont pvp in rookie systems but when i would go to them i would see people pvping outside the staton who arent rookies Yes, you can still PvP there. You cannot mess with the rookies there, what you do to other people is your own business. Note that dropping your property into space in a rookie system is not a bright idea. If a rookie gets curious ad takes from the can you had better not shoot him. You do not want a rookie to nab your stuff, do not drop the stuff in a rookie system.
Maybe it would be a good idea to somehow denote a player as a "rookie" in the overview or in their info? Otherwise it could be hard to tell when one is a rookie and one isn't. And then again there are lots of people who make alts to transport their stuff around - could this be abused to avoid the risk generally associated with transporting (although I understand it only applies in rookie systems - which those are I'm not entirely certain)? |

AureoBroker
Natural Inventions
34
 |
Posted - 2012.05.03 21:43:00 -
[153] - Quote
Oh, saint god. A rookie is someone who's still in a t1 frigate/cruiser/industrial, doing the NPE quests. Which is basically someone <10 days old, 30 at worse. You REALLY need a description of that? |

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
80
 |
Posted - 2012.05.03 21:48:00 -
[154] - Quote
AureoBroker wrote:Oh, saint god. A rookie is someone who's still in a t1 frigate/cruiser/industrial, doing the NPE quests. Which is basically someone <10 days old, 30 at worse. You REALLY need a description of that? That would be definition number what, 10 in this thread alone :p
Good to see everyone is on the same page lol |

Killer Gandry
V I R I I Ineluctable.
373
 |
Posted - 2012.05.03 22:07:00 -
[155] - Quote
Simple but effective definition.
The target you killed and which resulted in getting you banned was a Rookie.
|

Chloe Dacella
Looney Clones
0
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:54:00 -
[156] - Quote
I've been playing for under a month. I recently got into a fight in a belt in a rookie system with someone who had been playing for a week or two longer than I had. They were in a T1 cruiser and I was in a T1 frig. I won and got a "don't **** with the rookies" message.
Now I'm not saying that I think that it's okay for anyone and everyone to **** with rookies but I think that if someone has been playing for longer than you have and has a more powerful ship than you have, then they should be fair game. The rules as they stand make it very difficult for very new players to get into PvP and piracy. |

Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
66
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:24:00 -
[157] - Quote
GM Zerat wrote:There is currently a blanket ban on can baiting in rookie systems, I just wanted to bring that up as many players make this mistake. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_SystemsWarning: Can Flipping in Rookie Systems is considered Griefing. So if you are thinking about can baiting only older players in those systems, please do not.
Can flipping and can baiting are two very different things. Your page should say what you actually mean (according to the the posts by GM Homonoia) that can baiting is not allowed, but can flipping of non-rookies is ok. Specifically, the page should say, "Can Baiting in Rookie Systems is considered Griefing."
EDIT: If needed, I will be more than happy to write an independent article on can baiting. |

Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
214
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:28:00 -
[158] - Quote
AureoBroker wrote:Oh, saint god. A rookie is someone who's still in a t1 frigate/cruiser/industrial, doing the NPE quests. Which is basically someone <10 days old, 30 at worse. You REALLY need a description of that?
If you really want to shoot T1 frigates or rookie ships move on to WH's, low or null sec, or join Wardecs even Faction Warfare. What the heck are you still doing in high sec you clumsy lousy carebear?
 brb |

Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
12
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:41:00 -
[159] - Quote
If rookies are worth protecting by CCP, they are worth protecting via in-game code -- not fuzzy, arbitrary, unknown or confusing rules discussed in a forum or website that not everyone will read or interpret correctly.
If rookies are to be protected, write CODE that makes their ships invulnerable to other player damage in hisec for 2 weeks (and prevent them from damaging other players). Make it impossible to steal from their cans, or them to steal from other player cans....WHATEVER. Do it in the damn code so its objective, not subjective and uniformly enforced with CLEAR warnings and results to the offender. i.e. CONCORD warning the person you are target locking is a 'protected person'. Whatever.....
There is an in-game crime system is there not? Why the frak is this not being used? Who was the genius who decided the in-game systems would not be used, and player policies enforced by website and forums? Brilliant 
The point is that if you do this in the code you do it once, for everyone, forever. If you implement your rookie protection policy via TOS website, forums and other ineffective means however you fail, and fail forever...
|

Sin Pew
Dakini Rising The Kali Cartel
54
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:59:00 -
[160] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:If rookies are worth protecting by CCP, they are worth protecting via in-game code -- not fuzzy, arbitrary, unknown or confusing rules discussed in a forum or website that not everyone will read or interpret correctly. If rookies are to be protected, write CODE that makes their ships invulnerable to other player damage in hisec for 2 weeks (and prevent them from damaging other players). Make it impossible to steal from their cans, or them to steal from other player cans....WHATEVER. Do it in the damn code so its objective, not subjective and uniformly enforced with CLEAR warnings and results to the offender. i.e. CONCORD warning the person you are target locking is a 'protected person'. Whatever..... There is an in-game crime system is there not? Why the frak is this not being used? Who was the genius who decided the in-game systems would not be used, and player policies enforced by website and forums? Brilliant  The point is that if you do this in the code you do it once, for everyone, forever. If you implement your rookie protection policy via TOS website, forums and other ineffective means however you fail, and fail forever... Hard-coding any form of invulnerability to rookies will inevitably lead to abuse with throw-away rookie alts hauling stuff across New Eden in gank-proof industrials.
If it is't coded already, it's just because it isn't as simple as you imagined. The major issue is the lack of official definition of a rookie, not finding how to protect said rookies, if rules and definitions were clear then GM sanctions wouldn't be discussed. "- You want a sandwich, Bacon?" Support horizontal scrollbars in Eve! Click here, tyvm. |
|

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7937
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:00:00 -
[161] - Quote
Adriel Malakai wrote:GM Zerat wrote:There is currently a blanket ban on can baiting in rookie systems, I just wanted to bring that up as many players make this mistake. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_SystemsWarning: Can Flipping in Rookie Systems is considered Griefing. So if you are thinking about can baiting only older players in those systems, please do not. Can flipping and can baiting are two very different things. Your page should say what you actually mean (according to the the posts by GM Homonoia) that can baiting is not allowed, but can flipping of non-rookies is ok. Specifically, the page should say, "Can Baiting in Rookie Systems is considered Griefing." EDIT: If needed, I will be more than happy to write an independent article on can baiting. Yes, this is a ridiculous problem.
The rules being intentionally fuzzy and not clearly presented is one thing; the rules being actually incorrectly written is something completely different GGv it's very bad. To go with the reckless driving example from before, what we have here is a rule that says that reckless driving is illegal and then gives GG#driving down the road at legal speedGG% as an example of reckless driving.
The rule as presented in that wiki page is almost entirely incorrect and does not correspond with what the GMs are now telling us: can flipping is not considered griefing in the rookie systems. You need to fix that page to say what the rules actually are.
On a more meta level, you (the GMs) can't really be surprised that the players are asking you to define the rules a bit more clearly when it becomes obvious that the rules are so fuzzy that the official description of them are false and do not reflect the rules as you apply them. GG#If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GkmvGkm you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GG%
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|

Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
12
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:19:00 -
[162] - Quote
Sin Pew wrote:Hard-coding any form of invulnerability to rookies will inevitably lead to abuse with throw-away rookie alts hauling stuff across New Eden in gank-proof industrials.
If it is't coded already, it's just because it isn't as simple as you imagined. The major issue is the lack of official definition of a rookie, not finding how to protect said rookies, if rules and definitions were clear then GM sanctions wouldn't be discussed.
Posting policies and rules on websites and forums is inherently fail because not everyone will read them or interpret correctly, so rookies still get pwned = fail.
Your scenario for 'abuse' of a code-based policy can be addressed, its just a case of having the will to do it...
For example in your contrived example you could limit invulnerability to certain rookie ships, and to specific rookie systems; giving the rooking a warning that if he leaves his rookie ship or rookie system his protections are stripped (like going into losec or null).
The point is for every contrived example why 'not' to do it in the code, I can come up with a remedy, and that should be the iterative (agile) act of continually polishing the game, so everyone benefits, uniformly; not polishing postings on a website many will never know exists.... Killboard |

Vera Algaert
Republic University Minmatar Republic
195
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:32:00 -
[163] - Quote
I don't understand the insistence on objectivity - is it really that hard to see that any "objective" system can be easily gamed and that circumstances and intent often matter just as much as the actual deed?
It reminds me very much of the notion (which seems to be especially widespread in the comment sections of tech sites) that every RL law will always be enforced to the letter, that legal proof must not leave any room for theoretical false positives and that the legal system can be easily gamed as long as each of your actions could be considered legal/harmless on its own.
It is funny that I say this (as I'm not from a country with a common law tradition and would expect people from common law countries to have internalized this notion much more naturally), but RL law is not "objective" and it is not meant to be "objective" either. Just because laws exist does not mean they have to be fully enforced every single time, the standard for proof is common-sense aka "reasonable doubt" not "complete certainty", supposed intent and foreseeable consequences of your actions matter a lot for the decision of how to apply existing law to your case and if you found an obvious loophole the judge will base his ruling on the intention of the law rather than its exact wording.
No rule can be written perfectly and the reason we have human judges is to prevent technical loopholes from getting exploited by criminals and to avoid overly harsh sentences in cases where the written law cannot account for the idiosyncratic circumstances of the case.
The more specific rules you demand, the less room is left for leniency and wisdom.
I honestly do not understand how a purely mechanistic approach to law could be expected to render justice... |

Trappist Monk
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
6
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:57:00 -
[164] - Quote
WTF is so difficult about clarifying the rules? Using the logic "if we define it, people will do it" is absurd on its face. The reason you define it is so that people won't do it and that those who do can be punished consistently. If people come GG#up to the lineGG% thatGGVs an indicator THEY ARENGGVT DOING ANYTHING WRONG. By definition! If there is no rule, how does a GM know how to decide? If there is no line, youGGVre guaranteeing that your enforcement policies will be necessarily arbitrary, as any particular case may be ruled GGbadGGV by one GM and not another. YouGGVre creating a situation in which there will be inconsistency.
In this post: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1467790#post1467790 a GM states that the rules are not restricted to Rookie Systems and may, depending on whether weGGVre good little boys and girls, be extended to many other systems. The concern appears to be shooting noobs in general. Not baiting them with mechanics they donGGVt understand; not outright ganking them; not screwing with their heads. Also in this thread-- GG#The rule is GGdo not mess with rookies,GGV and if you are in doubt the answer is ALWAYS GGdo not do it'.GG% YouGGVve gone a step further with GG#If a rookie gets curious and takes from the can you had better not shoot him. You do not want a rookie to nab your stuff, do not drop the stuff in a rookie system.GG%
Please clarify: 1. Outside of a rookie system, can I shoot a rookie? 2. Inside a rookie system, can a rookie steal with impunity, even from other rookies? 3. What is a rookie? How many days, weeks, hours? 4. Is a rookie really a rookie if heGGVs an alt on an account with a 6yr old character?
You could simplify this for everyone involved. Just lock the rookie gate from the outside. Put a big sign over the inside gate with a GG#Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter HereGG% style warning. Outside of the rookie system, youGGVre fair game. Update the SOE arc for level 2 players or use higher standings qualifications to weed the newest noobs out of the mix. I find it difficult to believe that many 1 week old noobs run the SOE arc. Or 2 or 3 week old for that matter. If youGGVre ready to help Sister Alitura save the universe, youGGVre ready to face the kind of people who want to destroy the universe.
finally, a poster above says less than 30 days is a rookie. Does that mean the hordes of 2 week hero suicide alts get a free pass? Cause I'd like to bait some miners.
|

Savage Angel
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
88
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:06:00 -
[165] - Quote
Now we see true colors. ITT a bunch of jerks trying to find any loophole to be a jerk. Read the GM response - the rule is vague to keep you jackals from doing just that.
|

Trappist Monk
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
6
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:18:00 -
[166] - Quote
Savage Angel wrote:Now we see true colors. ITT a bunch of jerks trying to find any loophole to be a jerk. Read the GM response - the rule is vague to keep you jackals from doing just that.
If the rules are written well and the system is designed well, there should be no loopholes. It's simple: what is a rookie? where can i not kill them? What's so hard about that? If the answer is, you can't kill them anywhere, get ready for the jackals to start noob alts and begin setting things on fire. I, for one, am already giving thought to using a noob to steal ore from other noobs. The fallout should be funny. |

Haulie Berry
206
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:23:00 -
[167] - Quote
I could swear I remember reading some lengthy, apologetic schlock revolving largely around "communication" at some point following monoclegate.
Was the GM team not CC'd on that memo? |

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
503
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:33:00 -
[168] - Quote
Trappist Monk wrote:Savage Angel wrote:Now we see true colors. ITT a bunch of jerks trying to find any loophole to be a jerk. Read the GM response - the rule is vague to keep you jackals from doing just that.
If the rules are written well and the system is designed well, there should be no loopholes.
And we have volumes of well written law books and yet there are still loopholes. The same would happen here, CCP could grab their lawyer, have him write the entire hall of Eve laws and bylaws, and we would still end up with people finding any little loophole or simply claiming that they didn't know because they couldn't be ass'd to read the Encyclopedia Britannica of Eve rules. GM Homonia, I feel, has given a very well defined answer that suits the purpose very well. You guys are looking for a number and that will not work. I can easily give you several loophole scenario's when we base a rookie's status on just his age. It is better that they have more of a gray area where they can handle things case by case. Mean while I 'm sure you guys can step up a little and hunt players who are a couple months old, I'm fairly certain you may be able to handle them. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
661
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:34:00 -
[169] - Quote
I'm failing to understand how it is even remotely appropriate to but blanket bans on PVP in systems that are local trade hubs, border lowsec and contain non-rookie mission agents. With arnon considered a rookie system you can now run L3 security missions and nobody is allowed to screw with you while you do them and in a previous thread GM Homonoia literally threatened to expand the definition of rookie systems to include Hek; a system with multiple L4 mission agents.
At this rate we're set on a path to end up with a number of highsec systems where people can carebear away forever in their 20 billion isk mission ships and nobody can mess with them because GMs are too lazy to actually use human judgement and would rather have idiotic blanket policies. |

Savage Angel
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
89
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:40:00 -
[170] - Quote
Trappist Monk wrote:Savage Angel wrote:Now we see true colors. ITT a bunch of jerks trying to find any loophole to be a jerk. Read the GM response - the rule is vague to keep you jackals from doing just that.
If the rules are written well and the system is designed well, there should be no loopholes. It's simple: what is a rookie? where can i not kill them? What's so hard about that? If the answer is, you can't kill them anywhere, get ready for the jackals to start noob alts and begin setting things on fire. I, for one, am already giving thought to using a noob to steal ore from other noobs. The fallout should be funny.
Thank you for proving the point. |
|

Haulie Berry
207
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:55:00 -
[171] - Quote
Something Random wrote:
Its real simple as the GM stated.
Get out of rookie systems. They are saying ANYWHERE else you can pretty much do whatever.
BUT you seem to insist youll live in like 20 systems in the freaking 5000+ system universe ? Logic fail. OR you like kicking the smallest kids in kindergarten still at the age of 30 probably.
Except as of yesterday, I was seeing GM posts saying, "And, also, don't be mean to rookies in other systems, either, or we'll have to make THOSE "rookie" systems, too."
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect some clarification when this kind of policy creep is being explicitly threatened.
Could also, as an aside, stand a great deal less editorializing from Homonoia. There is a good reason that policy enforcement types are generally expected to shelve their attitude and don the guise of a highly professional automaton. |

Cutter Isaacson
Peace N Quiet
479
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:17:00 -
[172] - Quote
None of this would be an issue if people weren't pathetic enough to go shoot at rookies in the first place. Numbers of terminally stupid people seem to be on the increase, I suggest we have a real life Stupidageddon to rectify this issue. |

Jessy Berbers
Tribuo Quod Victum The AirShip Pirates
14
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:22:00 -
[173] - Quote
I agree, go hunt someone who is able to shoot back, Cowards. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7941
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:30:00 -
[174] - Quote
Cutter Isaacson wrote:None of this would be an issue if people weren't pathetic enough to go shoot at rookies in the first place. GG*except that you have to be able to do so, otherwise it would create such a ridiculously huge and abusable loophole to hide stuff behind. GG#If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GkmvGkm you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GG%
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|

Cutter Isaacson
Peace N Quiet
479
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:32:00 -
[175] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:None of this would be an issue if people weren't pathetic enough to go shoot at rookies in the first place. GG*except that you have to be able to do so, otherwise it would create such a ridiculously huge and abusable loophole to hide stuff behind.
Please explain, in detail, how you believe this is the case.
Numbers of terminally stupid people seem to be on the increase, I suggest we have a real life Stupidageddon to rectify this issue. |

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
503
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:33:00 -
[176] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:None of this would be an issue if people weren't pathetic enough to go shoot at rookies in the first place. GG*except that you have to be able to do so, otherwise it would create such a ridiculously huge and abusable loophole to hide stuff behind.
You have to scan down a rookie's mission, fly into it, steal his can, and pop him when he attacks? What is he hiding in there? Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |
|

ISD LoneLynx
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
28

 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:53:00 -
[177] - Quote
Some posts were deleted as inappropriate personal attacks or for being inconstructive (along with replies for such posts)
Keep your discussion with decent grade of respects to your colleagues. ISD LoneLynx Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|

No More Heroes
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
633
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:00:00 -
[178] - Quote
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.
Seems pretty clear to me. . |

Trappist Monk
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
6
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:06:00 -
[179] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:Trappist Monk wrote:Savage Angel wrote:Now we see true colors. ITT a bunch of jerks trying to find any loophole to be a jerk. Read the GM response - the rule is vague to keep you jackals from doing just that. If the rules are written well and the system is designed well, there should be no loopholes. And we have volumes of well written law books and yet there are still loopholes. The same would happen here, CCP could grab their lawyer, have him write the entire hall of Eve laws and bylaws, and we would still end up with people finding any little loophole or simply claiming that they didn't know because they couldn't be ass'd to read the Encyclopedia Britannica of Eve rules. GM Homonia, I feel, has given a very well defined answer that suits the purpose very well. You guys are looking for a number and that will not work. I can easily give you several loophole scenario's when we base a rookie's status on just his age. It is better that they have more of a gray area where they can handle things case by case. Mean while I 'm sure you guys can step up a little and hunt players who are a couple months old, I'm fairly certain you may be able to handle them. You're missing the point. The complexity of law isn't necessary or applicable here. More to the point, complex rules would be unnecessary if the game were designed with noob protection in mind, instead of as an afterthought 9 years later.
Let me put it another way: most of you are talking about new PLAYERS, i.e. people who haven't played EVE before and need time to acclimate. The rest of us are talking about new CHARACTERS, who can be 6 yr vets or new players.
The issue here should be relatively obvious. If you make rules based on the age of the CHARACTER, then creative vets are going to use noob alts to stir up trouble or to make themselves immune to attack or, worse still, use them to get other people warned/banned.
It's reasonable to want to protect new PLAYERS, but creating random, vague, ill conceived, poorly implemented, inconsistently applied rules isn't going to do that. All it does is create minor **** storms like this one. If the goal of the rules is to protect new PLAYERS, then there should be a safe, insulated starting zone (preferably implemented as a "simulator" inside a station that you must graduate from to join the real eve), that allows real noobs to learn the game and its consequences without having to implement a bunch of halfass **** rules that never address the core issue: new player retention. As is typical for CCP (and, lets face it, many large bureaucracies), they're focused on the symptoms rather than the cause. At its root its the same issue that plagues EVE in many other ways, its an incredibly complicated game with no real user instructions.
So, yes, I agree we should protect new players. Everyone else can suck my Howitzer. Unless CCP wants to spend a LOT of time micromanaging new player relations in EVE, they need to walk this rule change back to something simple and easy to remember and then publish it. Something like, no pvp, no theft, no bumping, no griefing, no nothing in rookie systems and only rookie systems. All of you should expect to see an increase in "noobs" provoking you to see if they can get you banned. |

Ban Bindy
Bindy Brothers Pottery Association
356
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:09:00 -
[180] - Quote
Cutter Isaacson wrote:None of this would be an issue if people weren't pathetic enough to go shoot at rookies in the first place.
This.
Posting whines onto this thread about needing to clarify what is a rookie just shows how desperate so many people are to shoot rookies in the first place. The screams for definition are, as usual, requests for a way around the rules. Leave the rookies alone. |
|

Trappist Monk
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
6
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:10:00 -
[181] - Quote
No More Heroes 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. Seems pretty clear to me. too bad they muddled it in the other threads. if it were this simple, i would agree with you. but it isn't, as they're creeping the changes into non-rookie systems |

Trappist Monk
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
6
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:11:00 -
[182] - Quote
Ban Bindy wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:None of this would be an issue if people weren't pathetic enough to go shoot at rookies in the first place. This. Posting whines onto this thread about needing to clarify what is a rookie just shows how desperate so many people are to shoot rookies in the first place. The screams for definition are, as usual, requests for a way around the rules. Leave the rookies alone. a 6yr vet who sets up a noob scout alt is not a noob. for god's sake listen to yourself. its like you never played this game. |

Ban Bindy
Bindy Brothers Pottery Association
356
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:13:00 -
[183] - Quote
If a few older player's alts get protected under these new rules, what's the harm? CCP can probably tell when it's a true new account versus a newbie created on an older players account. Might lead to new rules on exploits. That's fine. Protecting rookie players is important enough that it has to happen even if it allows some older players to abuse the rookie protection. |

Ban Bindy
Bindy Brothers Pottery Association
356
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:14:00 -
[184] - Quote
Trappist Monk wrote:Ban Bindy wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:None of this would be an issue if people weren't pathetic enough to go shoot at rookies in the first place. This. Posting whines onto this thread about needing to clarify what is a rookie just shows how desperate so many people are to shoot rookies in the first place. The screams for definition are, as usual, requests for a way around the rules. Leave the rookies alone. a 6yr vet who sets up a noob scout alt is not a noob. for god's sake listen to yourself. its like you never played this game.
For god's sake listen to yourself. It's like you never did anything but play this game and it's far, far too important to you. |

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
503
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:27:00 -
[185] - Quote
Trappist Monk wrote:THE L0CK wrote:Trappist Monk wrote:Savage Angel wrote:Now we see true colors. ITT a bunch of jerks trying to find any loophole to be a jerk. Read the GM response - the rule is vague to keep you jackals from doing just that. If the rules are written well and the system is designed well, there should be no loopholes. And we have volumes of well written law books and yet there are still loopholes. The same would happen here, CCP could grab their lawyer, have him write the entire hall of Eve laws and bylaws, and we would still end up with people finding any little loophole or simply claiming that they didn't know because they couldn't be ass'd to read the Encyclopedia Britannica of Eve rules. GM Homonia, I feel, has given a very well defined answer that suits the purpose very well. You guys are looking for a number and that will not work. I can easily give you several loophole scenario's when we base a rookie's status on just his age. It is better that they have more of a gray area where they can handle things case by case. Mean while I 'm sure you guys can step up a little and hunt players who are a couple months old, I'm fairly certain you may be able to handle them. You're missing the point. The complexity of law isn't necessary or applicable here. More to the point, complex rules would be unnecessary if the game were designed with noob protection in mind, instead of as an afterthought 9 years later. Let me put it another way: most of you are talking about new PLAYERS, i.e. people who haven't played EVE before and need time to acclimate. The rest of us are talking about new CHARACTERS, who can be 6 yr vets or new players. The issue here should be relatively obvious. If you make rules based on the age of the CHARACTER, then creative vets are going to use noob alts to stir up trouble or to make themselves immune to attack or, worse still, use them to get other people warned/banned. It's reasonable to want to protect new PLAYERS, but creating random, vague, ill conceived, poorly implemented, inconsistently applied rules isn't going to do that. All it does is create minor **** storms like this one. If the goal of the rules is to protect new PLAYERS, then there should be a safe, insulated starting zone (preferably implemented as a "simulator" inside a station that you must graduate from to join the real eve), that allows real noobs to learn the game and its consequences without having to implement a bunch of halfass **** rules that never address the core issue: new player retention. As is typical for CCP (and, lets face it, many large bureaucracies), they're focused on the symptoms rather than the cause. At its root its the same issue that plagues EVE in many other ways, its an incredibly complicated game with no real user instructions. So, yes, I agree we should protect new players. Everyone else can suck my Howitzer. Unless CCP wants to spend a LOT of time micromanaging new player relations in EVE, they need to walk this rule change back to something simple and easy to remember and then publish it. Something like, no pvp, no theft, no bumping, no griefing, no nothing in rookie systems and only rookie systems. All of you should expect to see an increase in "noobs" provoking you to see if they can get you banned.
You and I are actually on the same page, we are just seeing different conclusions to the matter. The main problem that many of us are talking about is that the infraction in question that spawned this thread along with its brother yesterday, is that the rookies are being targeted while running this epic arc mission outside of the rookie systems and they may only be days old. So should a box appear telling them that by accepting this quest they acknowledge that leaving the system may result in injury or death by a player with nothing better to do? And you can't tell me that players can't tell the difference. I make a living myself scanning out mission runners and pissing them off and I find that a frigate is much harder to pinpoint than a battleship and that tells me that these people really have to work hard to make the mistake. On the same note we now have a GM claiming that there will be blanket bans in the starter systems thus giving older players immunity. I agree that this is also wrong. I also agree that a rookie in a badger suddenly hauling millions in goods most likely isn't a rookie. I agree that a rookie who heads into lowsec to watch a gate is definitely not a rookie. I also agree that not everybody who runs the epic arcs is not rookie. But as the GM stated, if they tell us that a rookie is somebody who is 8 days old, players will just hunt people at 9 days. You draw a line and people will find a way to bend it. You leave it gray and they tend to be a bit more cautious.
And Mr. ISD guy, why did you delete my question to Tippia? I did not personally attack him, it dealt directly with the rest of the thread, and was essentially the same question asked as the guy above me (now above you), only worded differently. Why did my question go away. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7942
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:30:00 -
[186] - Quote
Cutter Isaacson wrote:Please explain, in detail, how you believe this is the case. If it is made absolutely and in every way illegal to attack rookies, then anyone with any kinds of brains will keep creating rookies for any form of risky hauling, travel, and/or spying.
Even if (in fact, especially if) there are non-public GM-discretion rules that someone who's using his umpty-eleventh recycled alt to do this will not be considered a rookie and is free to attack, there is no way for the rest of us to determine this and figure out that, yes, we can indeed attack this apparent rookie without censure, because he is in fact not a rookie at all. Even tying it to the account age and providing a public GG#newbieGG% flag on characters on that account will not stop this GGv people will use trials and buddy accounts to create the same protection against their characters. The outside capriciousness of the GMs' decisions makes it suicidal to try to stop even a blatantly obvious non-rookie because there is no way of knowing whether they will think it's as obvious as you do (and the obviousness might turn out to be wrong).
Suddenly, we have an entire class of characters that can do immense damage to people around them, but which cannot be retaliated against or interdicted. This would be far more damaging to the game than the occasional innocent rookie getting blown up.
Ban Bindy wrote:If a few older player's alts get protected under these new rules, what's the harm? CCP can probably tell when it's a true new account versus a newbie created on an older players account. Might lead to new rules on exploits. That's fine. Protecting rookie players is important enough that it has to happen even if it allows some older players to abuse the rookie protection. The harm is that we can't make the distinction, so the GMs would never have the opportunity to make it GGv no-one will be stupid enough to attack such a character because you never know (and that's also why the moronic GG#try it GGv if you get banned it was wrongGG% argument presented earlier is so insanely and laughably stupid). It creates a layer of protection that these older players should never have, and it does so because it is impossible to distinguish them from actual rookies by those who really need to be able to make that distinction GGv the players. GG#If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GkmvGkm you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GG%
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
7
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:35:00 -
[187] - Quote
Personally, I'm really at a loss for words here, sept this. Good for CCP. It's really very very simple, just leave the new players alone. Get it, just leave them alone. When in doubt just don't mess with them. Once again all this ragging debate to simply preserve the right for weak PVP players to kill the newest players in the game. Honestly it just never ceases to amaze me.
I not for one single second, believe this is what CCP envisioned when they created this game. It's bad for there business, for these guys to run off the new talent before they even get started. It's bad for real PVP'ers as they end up ditching the game before they ever have the opportunity to improve, then bring a real fight to guys like me. IMO it just all around sucks. It's just bad in virtually all aspects, except for providing the weakest of targets for so called PVP players that can do no better.
Then there's you guys that have to define when there not new anymore, Gawd really! |

Haulie Berry
207
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:46:00 -
[188] - Quote
Chandaris wrote:Stay out of the rookie systems, and if you have to go to them don't go there with the intention of greifing / killing / stealing from the noobs..
It's not that hard, and if you're looking for cut and dry rules you won't get them. The Gm's likely use a heavy amount of judgement as not two situations in eve are the same.
If you wanna grief people, don't do it in the newb systems.. it is that simple.. you're over thinking it.
Bravo on responding to a point that's not even under contention.
It's not that simple, because they've threatened to arbitrarily redefine other systems as "rookie" systems.
So now the rule is, apparently, "Don't gank rookies in rookie systems and, also, don't gank them in other systems or we'll turn them into rookie systems, too," which is a pretty obvious and grossly egregious bit of policy creep. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7944
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:52:00 -
[189] - Quote
Dakeen Kurvora wrote:I'm still not understanding any kind of issue with the simple rule of don't mess with rookies?
You scan down a potential gank victim in high sec, check him out and he is a under a month old. Move on!
You find a procurer mining in high sec belt while your out ganking miners, check him. Under a month? Move on! You find a Badger I carrying 25 billion in technetium coming out of gate cloak on a the EC-P8R gate in Torrinos, check him. Under a month. Move onGG*? GG#If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GkmvGkm you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GG%
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
7
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:56:00 -
[190] - Quote
The point here is so very simple. #1 use your brains, don't kill beginner players. If you can't figure out who they are, who's the weak link here hmm.
Sunshine and Lollipops what do you think??? |
|

Haulie Berry
207
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:56:00 -
[191] - Quote
Dakeen Kurvora wrote:I'm still not understanding any kind of issue with the simple rule of don't mess with rookies?
Yes, you clearly don't understand, because that's really not the rule. The rule as we know it is don't mess with rookies in rookie systems.
Quote:You scan down a potential gank victim in high sec, check him out and he is a under a month old. Move on!
You find a procurer mining in high sec belt while your out ganking miners, check him. Under a month? Move on!
Rookie grabs your bait can? Let him leave!
What is wrong with any of that? Afraid it might be an alt gaining Intel on you.... in high sec? Seriously?
Well for starters, in none of those situations is the "rookie" protected by policy, unless the occurrence is within a very specific handful of systems.
Quote:A rookie comes into your low sec/null system and hangs around longer than he should? Blast him. You might -maybe- get a warning sure,
...what? Are you high?
You seem to have absolutely zero grasp of even the vaguest definition of the rules as they exist. |

Greg Valanti
Looney Clones
51
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:57:00 -
[192] - Quote
Chloe Dacella wrote:I've been playing for under a month. I recently got into a fight in a belt in a rookie system with someone who had been playing for a week or two longer than I had. They were in a T1 cruiser and I was in a T1 frig. I won and got a "don't **** with the rookies" message.
Now I'm not saying that I think that it's okay for anyone and everyone to **** with rookies but I think that if someone has been playing for longer than you have and has a more powerful ship than you have, then they should be fair game. The rules as they stand make it very difficult for very new players to get into PvP and piracy.
since everyone seems to be ignoring the reason this thread was bumped in the first place. |

Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
133
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:58:00 -
[193] - Quote
Dakeen Kurvora wrote:I'm still not understanding any kind of issue with the simple rule of don't mess with rookies?
You scan down a potential gank victim in high sec, check him out and he is a under a month old. Move on!
You find a procurer mining in high sec belt while your out ganking miners, check him. Under a month? Move on!
Rookie grabs your bait can? Let him leave!
What is wrong with any of that? Afraid it might be an alt gaining Intel on you.... in high sec? Seriously?
A rookie comes into your low sec/null system and hangs around longer than he should? Blast him. You might -maybe- get a warning sure, then just kindly explain to the GM that he overstayed his welcome, or you warned him. Especially true if they happen to be attempting to follow you or just floating around outside a gate or station, for an extended period --read: like 10+ minutes--
Probably don't have to worry much about rookies in Null. I've seen many of Rookie ships left behind by the NPC gate guards.
Use your brain that's all the rule asks for, if your brain fails you then take the slap on the wrist and move on. Thanks to kill reports there is a clear difference between an "oops" every once in a great while and a supposed "oops" 4 times in the same day.
To add in about flagging Rookies in any form: Flagging Rookies only makes it easier to spot them for people who want to attack them. Yes this does make it easier to spot who is griefing them, but those that want to still will, and be more ruthless about it knowing they will be banned. Making them immune to aggression opens a windows for exploitation, the phrase "Your an idiot if you don't transport stuff using a rookie alt" would become extremely popular overnight. It happens in other games with similar mechanics. Because an alt on a 6 year old account isn't a rookie.
Becaue not every rookie needs a month to get used to the game.
Because some new players actually do jump into PvP and bating shortly after joining EVE.
And "don't mess with rookies" doesn't account for any of that.
You need a new account timer, not a broadbased rule that isn't coded. |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
7
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:59:00 -
[194] - Quote
Tippia, could you please explain to me when a rookie would be hauling 25 Billion of anything Hmm. Don't you think that would make him kinda not a rookie???? |

Chandaris
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
76
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:00:00 -
[195] - Quote
Dakeen.. Protection only applies in the rookie +9 and +1.0 systems afaik..
If a rookie wanders into lowsec, he is fair game.. There is a big friendly warning to that effect that he gets.. Inability to read ain't my problem. |

Dakeen Kurvora
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
1
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:01:00 -
[196] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Dakeen Kurvora wrote:I'm still not understanding any kind of issue with the simple rule of don't mess with rookies?
You scan down a potential gank victim in high sec, check him out and he is a under a month old. Move on!
You find a procurer mining in high sec belt while your out ganking miners, check him. Under a month? Move on! You find a Badger I carrying 25 billion in technetium coming out of gate cloak on a the EC-P8R gate in Torrinos, check him. Under a month. Move onGG*?
Unfortunately you seemed to have missed the part about using your brain. Obviously that is no rookie sir. Fire away. Like I said if your brain fails you then take the slap on the wrist. It's --extremely-- unlikely that a GM will do anything in that situation. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7944
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:02:00 -
[197] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Tippia, could you please explain to me when a rookie would be hauling 25 Billion of anything Hmm. Don't you think that would make him kinda not a rookie???? That's just it: we don't know. We are not allowed to know. An actual rookie can most certainly be carrying 25 billion worth of anything, so why shouldn't I be able to interdict that and roll around in the cash just because he's new?
Dakeen Kurvora wrote:Unfortunately you seemed to have missed the part about using your brain. Obviously that is no rookie sir. Says you. How do I know that? What happens when it turns out that, indeed, he was a rookie GGv first account ever and enlisted as a hauler by people who wanted to move the stuff under protection of the GG#don't shoot rookiesGG% law, and now the GMs (who didn't agree with you because they could check it out and see that he was a legitimate rookie) nuked my account.
This is why I'm saying what I'm saying: we must be able to shoot rookies, because my obvious is not your obvious is not the GMs obvious, and testing by shooting and seeing if it results in a ban is not a workable solution. GG#If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GkmvGkm you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GG%
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|

Greg Valanti
Looney Clones
51
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:03:00 -
[198] - Quote
Chandaris wrote:Dakeen.. Protection only applies in the rookie +9 and +1.0 systems afaik..
If a rookie wanders into lowsec, he is fair game.. There is a big friendly warning to that effect that he gets.. Inability to read ain't my problem.
They also get a big friendly warning before taking from someone else's wreck or can, but that has yet to prevent anything. |

Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
133
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:03:00 -
[199] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Tippia, could you please explain to me when a rookie would be hauling 25 Billion of anything Hmm. Don't you think that would make him kinda not a rookie????
You missed the point.
Some people have alts, those alts aren't "rookies" even if they're a day old. Someone can have an alt, under a month old, that they made to haul some stuff for their main living in a rookie system. Why is that guy off limits because they not over X amount of days old, even though they just came from a .6 system and hauling lots of valuable goods for a 6 year old main?
Stupid forum 404! |

Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
821
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:05:00 -
[200] - Quote
Interestingly before I started playing EVE I had read the forums for a few months along with the entire wiki and a few fan sites. I probably knew more about EVE than some 1 years olds do now.
The problem: with the way rules are now, a rookie could grief the PvPers in Arnon (grief as in the bannable offence) by continually taking their cans and they can't do anything about it. |
|

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
504
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:10:00 -
[201] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:Mrr Woodcock wrote:Tippia, could you please explain to me when a rookie would be hauling 25 Billion of anything Hmm. Don't you think that would make him kinda not a rookie???? You missed the point. Some people have alts, those alts aren't "rookies" even if they're a day old. Someone can have an alt, under a month old, that they made to haul some stuff for their main living in a rookie system. Why is that guy off limits because they not over X amount of days old, even though they just came from a .6 system and hauling lots of valuable goods for a 6 year old main? Stupid forum 404!
I think that is the point that both sides are trying to make but they are looking at it from different angles and neither wants to be wrong on the internet forum. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
7
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:14:00 -
[202] - Quote
Greg Valanti, there are all kinds of opportunities for new players to do combat and Piracy. Join factional warfare for the fights. Heck if you do well enough on the beginner missions, you do actually get an invite to move to pirate factional systems. In the world of eve, you have to work at being good at something. Nothing comes easy. I've actually spent a fair amount of time doing what I'm beginning to call old school piracy. I actually did really well ISK wise, had a guy in a freighter eject from his ship when he thought he was going to die. We actually got the ship, and every single thing that was in it. Still have the freighter to this day. I did all my piracy in low sec. Home of the pirates. Head out there, make a few friends, you'll be camping gates before you know it.
I get it, your both newer players, you wanted to play pirate, the other guy didn't. He was still a new player. Is is so damned hard to just respect that? |

Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
133
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:15:00 -
[203] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote:Mrr Woodcock wrote:Tippia, could you please explain to me when a rookie would be hauling 25 Billion of anything Hmm. Don't you think that would make him kinda not a rookie???? You missed the point. Some people have alts, those alts aren't "rookies" even if they're a day old. Someone can have an alt, under a month old, that they made to haul some stuff for their main living in a rookie system. Why is that guy off limits because they not over X amount of days old, even though they just came from a .6 system and hauling lots of valuable goods for a 6 year old main? Stupid forum 404! I think that is the point that both sides are trying to make but they are looking at it from different angles and neither wants to be wrong on the internet forum.
Yeah, I've noticed some people want to be able to shoot rookies. Doesn't make sense to me, rookies should be protected; just not this way.
I'll just keep repeating this because I honestly have nothing better to do with my life.
CCP needs to code in a new account timer that prevents hostile action for a set amount of time. Only the new account can remove that timer with their own actions. They shouldn't be protected in one system, they should be protected in hi sec over a specific threshold for duration of time. Not every rookie is going to spend their first 2 or 3 weeks in a rookie system.
This rule only creats a safe zone, helping people who stay in that zone, but doesn't actually help rookies overall. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:19:00 -
[204] - Quote
Cutter Isaacson wrote:Tippia wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:None of this would be an issue if people weren't pathetic enough to go shoot at rookies in the first place. GG*except that you have to be able to do so, otherwise it would create such a ridiculously huge and abusable loophole to hide stuff behind. Please explain, in detail, how you believe this is the case.
You can fit a lot of Avatar BPOs in an Ibis. If you can't shoot rookies (based on either Character or Account age), no hauler would need Orca alts for high value cargo, they'd just use young accounts/toons.
So the question remains. Of the population that inhabits rookie systems, what separates "Rookie" form "not-Rookie."
Is someone mining in a Hulk a Rookie? A Retriever?
It's like the heap of sand problem. We are clear that a grain of sand is not a heap, and a billion grains is a heap, we're clear that 2 grains is still not a heap and a billion minus one is still a heap. At some point, there is a grain of sand which makes the sand a heap; figuring out which grain is very hard though. This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:20:00 -
[205] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
CCP needs to code in a new account timer that prevents hostile action for a set amount of time. Only the new account can remove that timer with their own actions. They shouldn't be protected in one system, they should be protected in hi sec over a specific threshold for duration of time. Not every rookie is going to spend their first 2 or 3 weeks in a rookie system.
Cool, perfect safety for my High Value-Low volume hauls of Officer Gear, Titan and T2 BPOs. This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Aethlyn
EVE University Ivy League
130
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:21:00 -
[206] - Quote
Come on, people, just apply common sense. Do you really have to rely on trying to grief (or gank or whatever) players in those few 1.0 systems that are designated as newbie starting areas? Don't even try to get people there; problem solved.
Also, why should someone carry PLEX around a newbie system? Wait till he leaves it, shoot him down.
Just think back of your first few days in Eve. Where did you hang out, what did you do? Just think back and don't do things you wouldn't have liked to see and you should be pretty much save. Looking for more thoughts? Read [url]http://aethlyn.blogspot.com/[/url] or follow me on [url]http://twitter.com/Aethlyn[/url]. |

Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
133
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:22:00 -
[207] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote:
CCP needs to code in a new account timer that prevents hostile action for a set amount of time. Only the new account can remove that timer with their own actions. They shouldn't be protected in one system, they should be protected in hi sec over a specific threshold for duration of time. Not every rookie is going to spend their first 2 or 3 weeks in a rookie system.
Cool, perfect safety for my High Value-Low volume hauls of Officer Gear, Titan and T2 BPOs. It's not though.
Even an act like storing X amount of isk worth of goods in an ibus can remove a timer. |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
7
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:24:00 -
[208] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn, ya know I'm not going to imply that CCP needs to code anything. With the up coming Dust release, and just gobbs of other issues, I actually think there plate is pretty full. Especially when a little simple real life etiquette would do just fine in this situation.
OK Just a simple question. Who in here thinks a 2 week old player hauling 25 Billion isk worth of anything in a T1 industrial would be a rookie? Could I see hands please. |

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
504
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:25:00 -
[209] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:Tippia wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:None of this would be an issue if people weren't pathetic enough to go shoot at rookies in the first place. GG*except that you have to be able to do so, otherwise it would create such a ridiculously huge and abusable loophole to hide stuff behind. Please explain, in detail, how you believe this is the case. You can fit a lot of Avatar BPOs in an Ibis. If you can't shoot rookies (based on either Character or Account age), no hauler would need Orca alts for high value cargo, they'd just use young accounts/toons. So the question remains. Of the population that inhabits rookie systems, what separates "Rookie" form "not-Rookie." Is someone mining in a Hulk a Rookie? A Retriever? It's like the heap of sand problem. We are clear that a grain of sand is not a heap, and a billion grains is a heap, we're clear that 2 grains is still not a heap and a billion minus one is still a heap. At some point, there is a grain of sand which makes the sand a heap; figuring out which grain is very hard though.
Many of us have really gone over the rookie hauling tons of goods scenario. Now I'll attempt to ask the question that got erased earlier. The main situation that brought up this thread and its twin yesterday was about a guy going into a rookies epic arc mission that was in a system that was not designated starter. So I ask, why does a person have to scan down a rookies mission, fly into it, steal from his can, and pop him? Is he carrying Avatar BPO's in his hold as well? Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
821
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:25:00 -
[210] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:.... Tippia, just think about what your saying there would ya. I can figure out he's not a rookie, CCP I'm certain can figure this out. What about you. I wouldn't be so sure.
As it stands you get a warning when shooting someone who is older than you, in a better and more skill intensive ship than you, in a rookie system if the older character is considered a rookie (meaning the one doing the shooting woudl be a rookie too). And in Arnon, a "rookie" can grab from PvPers cans all they want and if they get shot, they can just get someone banned. Its the ultimate griefing, and CCP encourages it. |
|

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
504
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:27:00 -
[211] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Mrr Woodcock wrote:.... Tippia, just think about what your saying there would ya. I can figure out he's not a rookie, CCP I'm certain can figure this out. What about you. I wouldn't be so sure. As it stands you get a warning when shooting someone who is older than you, in a better and more skill intensive ship than you, in a rookie system if the older character is considered a rookie (meaning the one doing the shooting woudl be a rookie too). And in Arnon, a "rookie" can grab from PvPers cans all they want and if they get shot, they can just get someone banned. Its the ultimate griefing, and CCP encourages it.
Why do people feel the need to pvp in a starter system?
Edit: I should clarify to Can PVP, wardecs excluded. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7946
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:29:00 -
[212] - Quote
Aethlyn wrote:Come on, people, just apply common sense. Do you really have to rely on trying to grief (or gank or whatever) players in those few 1.0 systems that are designated as newbie starting areas? And again: that is not the problem. The problem is that the rules for those systems are seeping out into completely different ones, potentially opening up huge and easily exploitable holes in the entire industry-PvP sector.
Quote:Also, why should someone carry PLEX around a newbie system? Wait till he leaves it, shoot him down. Again, the problem is that as the rules are going to apply outside the system, I won't be allowed to.
Quote:Just think back of your first few days in Eve. Where did you hang out, what did you do? Jita. Laughing at the scams. Dodging the ganks and smartbombs.
Mrr Woodcock wrote:OK Just a simple question. Who in here thinks a 2 week old player hauling 25 Billion isk worth of anything in a T1 industrial would be a rookie? Could I see hands please. GG*missing the point that he very well could be, and that there is no way of knowing before the GMs take you by the ear. In fact, just the fact that he's doing it in a T1 indy rather seems to suggest that he is indeed a rookie, because that's a classic rookie mistake. GG#If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GkmvGkm you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GG%
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|

Dakeen Kurvora
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
1
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:30:00 -
[213] - Quote
I just remember a GM saying "Don't mess with rookies" nothing specific about systems. Although I was aware of the "Rookie System" rule as well. So what
If it is only in "Rookie Systems" why worry about who is a rookie or not in those specific systems? Almost all situations can be resolved outside said systems. One jump out. The guy carrying 25b worth of stuff isn't just orbiting the station is he? He is either going somewhere or came from somewhere right? So follow him out. If he is headed to the station there than well that in unfortunately a lost opportunity. Question is, was I their waiting at a gate for someone to come along inside that Rookie System? My fault for not being on the other side of the gate.
If it extends into other systems, again think first guys. Generally if you have to it would be a bad idea. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:30:00 -
[214] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote:
CCP needs to code in a new account timer that prevents hostile action for a set amount of time. Only the new account can remove that timer with their own actions. They shouldn't be protected in one system, they should be protected in hi sec over a specific threshold for duration of time. Not every rookie is going to spend their first 2 or 3 weeks in a rookie system.
Cool, perfect safety for my High Value-Low volume hauls of Officer Gear, Titan and T2 BPOs. It's not though. Even an act like storing X amount of isk worth of goods in an ibus can remove a timer.
How much is a T2 BPO worth? There's no open market for them for CCP to pull fair market value.
What's to stop people from tricking newbies from removing their timers?
The point is that We're fine with protecting rookies in rookie systems. Maybe even give them a message that they receive special protection in those systems.
The issue is asking what a rookie is, given that non-rookies live in rookie systems.
Giving rookies unlimited safety for x time not only is easily abusable, but would lead to a fair shock when their timer runs out and the stupid that they've been getting away with starts biting them.
EvE does not need FFA safe zones, and it doesn't need (for reasons of abusability/culture shock) traveling protections for rookies. So defining what is a rookie in the rookie systems is important. This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Ginseng Jita
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
1052
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:30:00 -
[215] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Dakeen Kurvora wrote:I'm still not understanding any kind of issue with the simple rule of don't mess with rookies?
You scan down a potential gank victim in high sec, check him out and he is a under a month old. Move on!
You find a procurer mining in high sec belt while your out ganking miners, check him. Under a month? Move on! You find a Badger I carrying 25 billion in technetium coming out of gate cloak on a the EC-P8R gate in Torrinos, check him. Under a month. Move onGG*?
Well of course. He is a rookie.  |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
7
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:30:00 -
[216] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Mrr Woodcock wrote:.... Tippia, just think about what your saying there would ya. I can figure out he's not a rookie, CCP I'm certain can figure this out. What about you. I wouldn't be so sure. As it stands you get a warning when shooting someone who is older than you, in a better and more skill intensive ship than you, in a rookie system if the older character is considered a rookie (meaning the one doing the shooting woudl be a rookie too). And in Arnon, a "rookie" can grab from PvPers cans all they want and if they get shot, they can just get someone banned. Its the ultimate griefing, and CCP encourages it.
Let's just say I'm feeling pretty sure they would
|

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:32:00 -
[217] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:Tippia wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:None of this would be an issue if people weren't pathetic enough to go shoot at rookies in the first place. GG*except that you have to be able to do so, otherwise it would create such a ridiculously huge and abusable loophole to hide stuff behind. Please explain, in detail, how you believe this is the case. You can fit a lot of Avatar BPOs in an Ibis. If you can't shoot rookies (based on either Character or Account age), no hauler would need Orca alts for high value cargo, they'd just use young accounts/toons. So the question remains. Of the population that inhabits rookie systems, what separates "Rookie" form "not-Rookie." Is someone mining in a Hulk a Rookie? A Retriever? It's like the heap of sand problem. We are clear that a grain of sand is not a heap, and a billion grains is a heap, we're clear that 2 grains is still not a heap and a billion minus one is still a heap. At some point, there is a grain of sand which makes the sand a heap; figuring out which grain is very hard though. Many of us have really gone over the rookie hauling tons of goods scenario. Now I'll attempt to ask the question that got erased earlier. The main situation that brought up this thread and its twin yesterday was about a guy going into a rookies epic arc mission that was in a system that was not designated starter. So I ask, why does a person have to scan down a rookies mission, fly into it, steal from his can, and pop him? Is he carrying Avatar BPO's in his hold as well?
Not a rookie system. He's stepped into his big boy pants by leaving the rookie system whether he knows it or not. I would not be averse to a warning upon first leaving the rookie systems, or a mission that explains the basics of HS aggro mechanics (in fact this would be an awesome addition to the NPE). This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Cutter Isaacson
Peace N Quiet
481
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:34:00 -
[218] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:Please explain, in detail, how you believe this is the case. If it is made absolutely and in every way illegal to attack rookies, then anyone with any kinds of brains will keep creating rookies for any form of risky hauling, travel, and/or spying. Even if (in fact, especially if) there are non-public GM-discretion rules that someone who's using his umpty-eleventh recycled alt to do this will not be considered a rookie and is free to attack, there is no way for the rest of us to determine this and figure out that, yes, we can indeed attack this apparent rookie without censure, because he is in fact not a rookie at all. Even tying it to the account age and providing a public GG#newbieGG% flag on characters on that account will not stop this GGv people will use trials and buddy accounts to create the same protection against their characters. The outside capriciousness of the GMs' decisions makes it suicidal to try to stop even a blatantly obvious non-rookie because there is no way of knowing whether they will think it's as obvious as you do (and the obviousness might turn out to be wrong). Suddenly, we have an entire class of characters that can do immense damage to people around them, but which cannot be retaliated against or interdicted. This would be far more damaging to the game than the occasional innocent rookie getting blown up. Ban Bindy wrote:If a few older player's alts get protected under these new rules, what's the harm? CCP can probably tell when it's a true new account versus a newbie created on an older players account. Might lead to new rules on exploits. That's fine. Protecting rookie players is important enough that it has to happen even if it allows some older players to abuse the rookie protection. The harm is that we can't make the distinction, so the GMs would never have the opportunity to make it GGv no-one will be stupid enough to attack such a character because you never know (and that's also why the moronic GG#try it GGv if you get banned it was wrongGG% argument presented earlier is so insanely and laughably stupid). It creates a layer of protection that these older players should never have, and it does so because it is impossible to distinguish them from actual rookies by those who really need to be able to make that distinction GGv the players.
The detailed explanation is much appreciated  Numbers of terminally stupid people seem to be on the increase, I suggest we have a real life Stupidageddon to rectify this issue. |
|

GM Homonoia
Game Masters C C P Alliance
740

 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:36:00 -
[219] - Quote
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. Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master |
|

Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
821
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:36:00 -
[220] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:Mrr Woodcock wrote:.... Tippia, just think about what your saying there would ya. I can figure out he's not a rookie, CCP I'm certain can figure this out. What about you. I wouldn't be so sure. As it stands you get a warning when shooting someone who is older than you, in a better and more skill intensive ship than you, in a rookie system if the older character is considered a rookie (meaning the one doing the shooting woudl be a rookie too). And in Arnon, a "rookie" can grab from PvPers cans all they want and if they get shot, they can just get someone banned. Its the ultimate griefing, and CCP encourages it. Why do people feel the need to pvp in a starter system? Edit: I should clarify to Can PVP, wardecs excluded. Oh no's Rookies fighting in starter systems!!!
And yes, Arnon certainly is a starter system.
|
|

Ginseng Jita
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
1052
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:36:00 -
[221] - Quote
CCP needs to be upfront and define what a *rookie* is. Simple. |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
7
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:40:00 -
[222] - Quote
I actually trust the GM's in this matter. Please do me a favor, help them, if need be, cut them a little slack, please grow them for me, lol. So they grow up into big strong veteran players for me to shoot at.
The GM's can tell if they're real beginners or not. I actually think it's kind of cool, they can blind side some of these bottom feeders, I think they deserve it. |

Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
66
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:43:00 -
[223] - Quote
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_Systems2. 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.
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.
EDIT: I also want to thank you for having the patience to read through a second thread and put together a full reply to this. I greatly appreciate your time and effort in clarifying things - it's been a great help. |

Haulie Berry
207
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:44:00 -
[224] - Quote
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_Systems2. No one is protected in systems outside of this list. 4. If new PLAYERS keep getting harassed the list of systems may be expanded. 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.
You just said in (2) that nobody is protected outside of rookie systems. Then you went on to say in (7), "But don't mess with them anyway, " which, as a GM edict, could be interpreted as policy. So now you have two policy points that directly contradict each other, and (4) is the cherry on top - "or else".
You couldn't make it through a brief synopsis of your position without contradicting both yourself and policy as it is currently known. This should probably be taken as an indication that you need to rethink things. |

Ginseng Jita
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
1054
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:44:00 -
[225] - Quote
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.
|

Greg Valanti
Looney Clones
51
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:46:00 -
[226] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Greg Valanti, there are all kinds of opportunities for new players to do combat and Piracy. Join factional warfare for the fights. Heck if you do well enough on the beginner missions, you do actually get an invite to move to pirate factional systems. In the world of eve, you have to work at being good at something. Nothing comes easy. I've actually spent a fair amount of time doing what I'm beginning to call old school piracy. I actually did really well ISK wise, had a guy in a freighter eject from his ship when he thought he was going to die. We actually got the ship, and every single thing that was in it. Still have the freighter to this day. I did all my piracy in low sec. Home of the pirates. Head out there, make a few friends, you'll be camping gates before you know it.
I moved on to other things months ago. Any recent activity of mine in Clellinon was war dec related. Chloe was only recruited to corp after the incident in question. So while I know about pvp opportunities and game mechanics, the rookies in these systems do not - and yet they are still being warned/banned over fighting other rookies (or even players more veteran than themselves!).
A big part of the problem is that the warnings for hostile aggression are inadequate. New players will click "OK" 9/10 times without reading the warning, then cry about their death when simply reading the pop up would have spared them. This creates a problem where now newbies have no exposure to or understanding of these aggression mechanics before venturing out of their rookie systems. Something for the NPE team to consider I suppose. |

Dakeen Kurvora
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
1
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:48:00 -
[227] - Quote
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.
Pretty sure he means we can't see what they see. |

EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
274
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:48:00 -
[228] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:EI Digin wrote:There are many many situations where a "new player", either a legitimate new player or a veteran with an axe to grind and a trial account, can exploit the system resulting in others becoming banned.
Off of the top of my head: - Using a 1 day player/alt in a frigate to fight wartargets in a rookie zone - Hauling overly expensive gear in a small frigate or industrial
Also you have situations where rookies who do not know what they are doing end up doing things like can flipping other rookies resulting in hilarious consequences and liberal use of the banhammer.
It's better to have people learn lessons the hard way than to coddle them through the game, because they will end up being griefed at one point or another. And if you're going to have player immunity, make it so that the rookies can't do any harm either, because you should know that eve players will take every advantage they can get to **** people off. If a "rookie" like that can take these actions he is obviously not a rookie and is thus not protected. Common sense; apply it.
It's not out of line for a rookie to join a corporation that is wardecced or to haul something between stations for money. There are many other situations where a new player could legitimately enter a scenario where they could blow up or blow someone else up due to the hands of another player in EvE Online, a spaceship game designed around blowing other spaceships. |
|

GM Homonoia
Game Masters C C P Alliance
744

 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:50:00 -
[229] - Quote
Haulie Berry wrote: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_Systems2. No one is protected in systems outside of this list. 4. If new PLAYERS keep getting harassed the list of systems may be expanded. 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. You just said in (2) that nobody is protected outside of rookie systems. Then you went on to say in (7), "Even though they're not protected outside of those systems, don't mess with them anywhere else, either " which, as a GM edict, could be interpreted as policy. So now you have two policy points that directly contradict each other, and (4) is the cherry on top - "or else". You couldn't make it through a brief synopsis of your position without contradicting both yourself and policy as it is currently known. This should probably be taken as an indication that you need to rethink things.
We do not want you to mess with them, that does not mean we come down with the ban hammer if you do so outside the mentioned systems. Not everything is black and white. These points do not conflict; 4 and 7 simply mean that if the situation OUTSIDE those systems gets too bad we will take further action. Thus INSIDE the systems it isn't allowed period, OUTSIDE those systems it is allowed, but we may evaluate if things get out of hand. Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master |
|

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:51:00 -
[230] - Quote
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.
I'm fine lumping (as far as other players are concerned) new alts in with new players, I'm just concerned about where (roughly) the line is drawn on age.
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'?"
I understand that you can't be precise with publicly available information, and that's fine.
We would just like to have some sensitive* but not particularly specific* public test, while you have your second, sensitive and specific, GM test.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_and_specificity
*To paraphrase the wiki, a Sensitive test finds all newbies, a specific test excludes all non-newbies. A sensitive and moderately specific test finds all newbies but has some false positive results for non-newbies. A sensitive and highly specific test finds all newbies and has very few false positives (the test the GMs have currently). This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |
|
|

GM Homonoia
Game Masters C C P Alliance
744

 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:52:00 -
[231] - Quote
EI Digin wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:EI Digin wrote:There are many many situations where a "new player", either a legitimate new player or a veteran with an axe to grind and a trial account, can exploit the system resulting in others becoming banned.
Off of the top of my head: - Using a 1 day player/alt in a frigate to fight wartargets in a rookie zone - Hauling overly expensive gear in a small frigate or industrial
Also you have situations where rookies who do not know what they are doing end up doing things like can flipping other rookies resulting in hilarious consequences and liberal use of the banhammer.
It's better to have people learn lessons the hard way than to coddle them through the game, because they will end up being griefed at one point or another. And if you're going to have player immunity, make it so that the rookies can't do any harm either, because you should know that eve players will take every advantage they can get to **** people off. If a "rookie" like that can take these actions he is obviously not a rookie and is thus not protected. Common sense; apply it. It's not out of line for a rookie to join a corporation that is wardecced or to haul something between stations for money. There are many other situations where a new player could legitimately enter a scenario where they could blow up or blow someone else up due to the hands of another player in EvE Online, a spaceship game designed around blowing other spaceships.
And this is why we will not define what a rookie is. Once again, common sense; a rookie involves himself in a war, perhaps not so rookie anymore. Now, stop coming up with hypothetical situations and apply some common sense. Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master |
|
|

GM Homonoia
Game Masters C C P Alliance
744

 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:53:00 -
[232] - Quote
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.
Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master |
|

Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
66
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:54:00 -
[233] - Quote
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.
I literally lol'd at this. |

Ginseng Jita
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
1054
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:56:00 -
[234] - Quote
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. |

Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
133
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:57:00 -
[235] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:
We do not want you to mess with them, that does not mean we come down with the ban hammer if you do so outside the mentioned systems. Not everything is black and white. These points do not conflict; 4 and 7 simply mean that if the situation OUTSIDE those systems gets too bad we will take further action. Thus INSIDE the systems it isn't allowed period, OUTSIDE those systems it is allowed, but we may evaluate if things get out of hand.
Hey Homonoia, may I ask.
Seeing as a stated goal of CCP is to improve the new player experience, as well as protecting new players so that they can get used to game mechanics, would it be possible to actually propose a timer system that takes into account a new players actions, as to avoid the whole system wide coverage thing and the "who is a new player" issue?
I just worry about other systems falling under this guideline because many players aren't aware of the rule, or simply don't care. I would think it would also alleviate some petitions and need for the GM's to have to check if the person aggressed was a new player as well, as well as the alt account of a veteran player thing.
|

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:57:00 -
[236] - Quote
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.
Luckily, it's not a real question. It's the on point example of the Sorites Paradox.*
That paradox is the whole issue being discussed in the thread.
*AKA the Heap Problem This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Haulie Berry
208
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:59:00 -
[237] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:
We do not want you to mess with them, that does not mean we come down with the ban hammer if you do so outside the mentioned systems. Not everything is black and white. These points do not conflict; 4 and 7 simply mean that if the situation OUTSIDE those systems gets too bad we will take further action. Thus INSIDE the systems it isn't allowed period, OUTSIDE those systems it is allowed, but we may evaluate if things get out of hand.
So, basically, while you don't want us to mess with rookie players, we're free to go ahead and mess with them anyway (free from consequence to ourselves) while simultaneously griefing the Eve community as a whole by encouraging you to **** up the game with the arbitrary expansion of non-sandbox zones.... as long as we do it outside of the rookie systems.
If you don't want people to mess with rookies, that's possibly the most ill-considered response you could have furnished.  |

Ginseng Jita
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
1054
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:00:00 -
[238] - Quote
Here is a simple solution. A totally new player, new account and all. Will have a title before their name. "Rookie" CCP can easily script this into the game and when the "Rookie" is no longer a "Rookie" based on meeting whatever criteria CCP sets for someone being a rookie...then the Rookie title is removed. |

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
505
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:01:00 -
[239] - Quote
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.
In response to another statement of yours, no, not stupid, is purposefully obtuse and painfully transparent about it. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:01:00 -
[240] - Quote
Ginseng Jita wrote:Here is a simple solution. A totally new player, new account and all. Will have a title before their name. "Rookie" CCP can easily script this into the game and when the "Rookie" is no longer a "Rookie" based on meeting whatever criteria CCP sets for someone being a rookie...then the Rookie title is removed.
That would work. Stealth Nerf to begging scams, but I'm ok with that. This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |
|

Ginseng Jita
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
1054
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:04:00 -
[241] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Ginseng Jita wrote:Here is a simple solution. A totally new player, new account and all. Will have a title before their name. "Rookie" CCP can easily script this into the game and when the "Rookie" is no longer a "Rookie" based on meeting whatever criteria CCP sets for someone being a rookie...then the Rookie title is removed. That would work. Stealth Nerf to begging scams, but I'm ok with that.
It would work. People with older accounts that create an alt on an existing account would not be flagged as rookies. Doesn't mean someone can't create a trial account or a whole new account and use it to grief - but at least it makes it easier to "know" who is thought of as a rookie and we'd be less likely as players to make a mistake. |

Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
133
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:05:00 -
[242] - Quote
Ginseng Jita wrote:Here is a simple solution. A totally new player, new account and all. Will have a title before their name. "Rookie" CCP can easily script this into the game and when the "Rookie" is no longer a "Rookie" based on meeting whatever criteria CCP sets for someone being a rookie...then the Rookie title is removed.
Because you have a group of players who would love nothing more then to hunt people down to blow up just because they have a tag that says "rookie".
You'd be putting a giant sign on a new player that amounts to "BLOW ME UP". |
|

GM Homonoia
Game Masters C C P Alliance
745

 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:05:00 -
[243] - Quote
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? Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master |
|

EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
274
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:07:00 -
[244] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote: And this is why we will not define what a rookie is. Once again, common sense; a rookie involves himself in a war, perhaps not so rookie anymore. Now, stop coming up with hypothetical situations and apply some common sense.
Joining a wardecced corp = perhaps not so rookie
Can-flipping = confirmed griefing
Both flag you for pvp, both would result in warning messages
Do you understand why some of us could be confused by your use of "common sense"? |

Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
133
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:07:00 -
[245] - Quote
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? LOL!
Come on, that's entirely to much logic for a forum! |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
7
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:09:00 -
[246] - Quote
Greg Valanti, I don't know where your at in your pirating career. What I'm trying to convey to most people that want to be real pirates, (not the weak bottom feeders) is that when done right in my opinion, there really is quite a lot of isk to be made. But very rarely does it occur in high sec, (some times it does), and I've never seen anyone get rich killing miners and newbys even with 100M isk payouts from goon.
Try infiltrating a medium size corp, earning there trust, then emptying there coffers into your pockets. Really really large isk potential there. Some of the richest players in eve got there fortunes this way.
One last example. I was working with a pirate corp, and joined an industrial low sec corp. They use to mine every Saturday morning. This particular Saturday was D-day so to speak. I was flying a cruiser guarding the mining fleet, as my pirate corp was preparing to invade the system. All my mids were fit with warp scramblers, I scrambled (2) Orcas, and (3) hulks as my friends jumped in to engage. Needless to say, we had a lot of fun, no one ejected that day. But it was a lot of fun, and the take wasn't to bad.
Killing beginners in any fashion really isn't where it's at, in my most humble opinion. Good Luck |

Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
66
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:11:00 -
[247] - Quote
Just for kicks, I'm going to throw this into the define a rookie debate.
Quote:I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. GGvJustice Potter Stewart, concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964), regarding possible obscenity in The Lovers. Linky
This is one of the most famous statements ever issued by the US Supreme Court and I think is remarkably applicable to the 'define a rookie' conundrum. |

Lincoln Armm
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:12:00 -
[248] - Quote
A lot of this seems to boil down to people saying "Don't mess with Noobs" Its SIMPLE! and the other side saying "Whats a Noob?, whats mess with mean?, it's nto simple!"
To my mind they are both right.
CCCP and for that matter EVE itself, NEEDS new players, just to replace losses nevermind expanding. This is especially true since many experienced players no longer pay to play at all. They have determined (and I think few would disagree) that New players getting tricked, smashed, scammed etc. when they have barely started playing will not help this goal so they are saying "don't do that". Of course what THAT is and what is a new player is NOT simple, its complex (like the example of "reckless driving" and its the very complexity that is why the rule must be vague.
Does this mean that GMs may make the occasional mistake? Yes. Does it mean that a legitimate target may sometimes get away. yes again, Does it mean honest mistakes may get som warned or banned? also yes. But it still beats all the alternatives.
The level of "protection" for New players is meant to scale. New players just learning the basics will be mostly operating in the New player starting systems so that's where you see the most protection. Even if they venture forth they are still not meant to be legitimate targets for activities that are designed on taking advantage of their ignorace of the games rules.
Recently there has been a lot of problems with griefing in the Epic quest which has caused CCCP to threaten heightened protection tbeing extend this to more systems. This is an outcome virtually no one wants but if the griefing continues or increases that will probably be the outcome.
So what does this mean to a player? You examine the situation, and in the vast majority of cases it will be clear if a player s a new player and if your actions could be construed as "messing with". If your in a new player system obviously you should raise this bar. If you find yourself in what you think is a gray area then you should just not do it. If you think its an action that should be ok and you get warned or banned you can use the systems available to protest.
Is this a perfect system? No but it is "good enough"
|

Drinoch
Kaotic Intentions Cold Hand of Shadow
7
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:15:00 -
[249] - Quote
i understand that the job of a GM is difficult, primarily due to the fact that it rqures you to actually talk to ppl and to justify your actions. With that being said all anyone is or have ever actually asked is pretty straight forward question.
DEFINE A ROOKIE!!!!!
You have made hints at some "top secret, uber double sececret probation GM guideline" for determining this. We as players are not asking for game codes just a rather simplistic awnser to a rather simplistic question. How long before a ROOKIE IS NOT A DAMN ROOKIE?!?!?!?!? |

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
505
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:15:00 -
[250] - Quote
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?
Definitely would include the can baiting along with can flipping being a no-no in starter systems, and by that I mean make sure each term is plainly printed.
Maybe put in that new player harassment is handle on a case by case basis. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |
|

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
505
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:18:00 -
[251] - Quote
Drinoch wrote:i understand that the job of a GM is difficult, primarily due to the fact that it rqures you to actually talk to ppl and to justify your actions. With that being said all anyone is or have ever actually asked is pretty straight forward question.
DEFINE A ROOKIE!!!!!
You have made hints at some "top secret, uber double sececret probation GM guideline" for determining this. We as players are not asking for game codes just a rather simplistic awnser to a rather simplistic question. How long before a ROOKIE IS NOT A DAMN ROOKIE?!?!?!?!?
GM Homonoia wrote: 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.
I'll just leave this here. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

Desert Ice78
Cobra Kai Dojo WHY so Seri0Us
136
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:20:00 -
[252] - Quote
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?
They all understand you perfectly well, and understand what they were doing perfectly (and by extension what a patethic bunch they all are) but they are never going to admit it, either to you or themselves.
Instead they are going to cry and cry that you've take their ball away.
Just tell them to **** off and grow a pair. 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. |

Haulie Berry
208
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:20:00 -
[253] - Quote
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?
If I had ZERO development time, I probably wouldn't make a hamfisted attempt to fix what is obviously a design problem via poorly defined policy.
You were doing alright with the existing well-known and well-understood rule of don't-shoot-rookies-in-xyz-systems. Where you've really gone awry is this, "...and while you can technically shoot them in other places, we reserve the right to institute massive amounts of policy creep if you do these things that aren't actually against the rules," effectively making an activity legal on a micro scale, but illegal on a macro scale. |

Trappist Monk
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
7
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:20:00 -
[254] - Quote
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? How about:
a straight rule for the vets, using an offical announcement: * No PvP with, stealing from, can baiting, griefing, spamming, or scamming of new characters who are 14 days or less old in rookie systems.
for the "real" rookies, using a last page after character creation but before entering game (or, if that needs development time, using one of those warning message boxes for system events): * EVE is based on non-consensual PvP. You will have limited protection from combat and piracy inside your starting system for 14 days. If you leave the starting system or your 14 days expire, you are a valid target and a willing participant.
|

Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
133
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:21:00 -
[255] - Quote
Drinoch wrote:i understand that the job of a GM is difficult, primarily due to the fact that it rqures you to actually talk to ppl and to justify your actions. With that being said all anyone is or have ever actually asked is pretty straight forward question.
DEFINE A ROOKIE!!!!!
You have made hints at some "top secret, uber double sececret probation GM guideline" for determining this. We as players are not asking for game codes just a rather simplistic awnser to a rather simplistic question. How long before a ROOKIE IS NOT A DAMN ROOKIE?!?!?!?!?
What if their definition of a "rookie" is determined on a case by case basis?
Because this is exactly what I take from them saying they won't define it. They're working on a case by case basis, and it's actually understandable.
A new player does basic combat mission for the first week in a rookie system, the next week they do advanced, the following week they do scanning, then they do mining, then they do courier, then they spend a week trying out one or the other before moving on to the SOE missions.
They CAN'T define it because some people are a rookie longer then others. I suspect it's not as simple as the GM looked at the character, determined if it's not a character on an older account, and then looked at how "old" the character is. If they have they other things to consider, like what the character was doing in the first place, or were the character came from, then "how old" the character is isn't really as important, and therefore undifineable in a broad sense. |

Makkal Hanaya
Drakenburg
110
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:23:00 -
[256] - Quote
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. although my eyes were open they might have just as well've been closed
|

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:23:00 -
[257] - Quote
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?
1) Messing with Protected Rookies in Rookie Systems is a Ban Worthy Offence; DON'T DO IT. (Messing with is broadly defined*). 2) A Protected Rookie is any Character under X number of days old** UNLESS a) That Character is in a Player Corp (under wardec?) 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
Add an MOTD in Rookie Help with a link to an explanation of Rookie Systems and the special protections therein.
That's it. That protects Rookies in rookie systems. It's extensible if you deem it necessary to ad new rookie systems without announcing that messing with rookies on the SOE path will elicit GM tears,*** it's robust enough to give you wiggle room in the "messing with" area, while allowing players who want to stay on the bright side of the rules a set of target selection guidelines. Some non-newbies will end up being protected, but all the loopholes should be on the "protecting non-newbies" side, and the limitation on system should limit the amount that those loopholes can be abused.
If you can squeeze a small amount of Dev time, add a pop-up to rookies when they leave protected systems. If you can squeeze more Dev time, add a new NPE mission to help explain aggro mechanics. If you can manage some ISD training time, have them try to teach basic aggro mechanics to rookies in rookie help. These are bonuses IF you can manage that time, they are not required to make the policy suggestion work.
*Nobody has any problem with broadly and vaguely defining "messing with" It's like broadly defining "Reckless" in Reckless driving. **The Protected Rookie Class HAS to be well defined. It's the "driving" in Reckless driving. ***Some people will intentionally try to bait you into a public response by messing with rookies in SOE systems now that you announced you might respond publicly. This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Trappist Monk
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
7
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:32:00 -
[258] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:If I had to be totally honest here, I'd say that adults are just giant children who take their fun more seriously. Which means that some people are going to take their rebelling more seriously. the most insightful words ever spoken by a goon |

Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
134
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:33:00 -
[259] - Quote
silens vesica wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote: Because this is exactly what I take from them saying they won't define it. They're working on a case by case basis, and it's actually understandable.
While I don't disagree, I will note that this puts a heavy chill on a whole lot of popular Empire Space activities - It's basically creating a 'landmine' problem. If you can't at least approximately identify a 'rookie,' then any aggressive act against a rather broad class of characters risks a ban. In short - If the minefields aren't marked, who will ever walk in the grass? So - I agree with the others, we need at the very least a ballpark idea of what constitutes a 'Rookie.'
I agree
However, I stick by my assertion that if you can't define it you code it, and if it's that important to you you WILL code it. Zero development time for something you think is important to the health of the game is not possible. CCP already said that they have plans to improve upon the new player experience. It's only a matter of when, not if. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:36:00 -
[260] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:RubyPorto wrote: ***Some people will intentionally try to bait you into a public response by messing with rookies in SOE systems now that you announced you might respond publicly.
This is what scares me. We all know, without a doubt, that there are people that when told not to do something will do it because they were told not to. Saying don't do this or we'll do this is only an invitation to some people to do exactly that. If I had to be totally honest here, I'd say that adults are just giant children who take their fun more seriously. Which means that some people are going to take their rebelling more seriously.
This is why you don't set up a policy of "If you make us mad, we'll X" unless X is so terrible that you achieve the chilling effect you need.
Rome did that. They said "If you molest a Roman Citizen, we'll burn down your Towns." That put a chilling effect on molesting Roman Citizens.
The GMs aren't willing to burn down the town (IP Ban, whatever), so they need to remain mute on conditional rule changes. This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |
|

Staten Island
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
4
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:39:00 -
[261] - Quote
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.
The problem with this is that it is vague and promotes meta-gaming. Anybody who has actually visited a "rookie" system can verify that these systems are havens for vet players and their alts who do all sorts of things such as mining, missioning, etc. . . . Sure the gms have said that your free to engage vet players in the rookie systems but they have also said that you do so at your own risk if a "rookie" gets in the way. Consequently, no sane person is going to engage under these rules and risk the potential ban that might result if a vet throws one of his rookie alts into the mix. Thus this rule essentially walls off portions of eve and creates de facto safe areas for all players regardless of age, which of course is directly counter to the essence of eve.
IMO, ccp should simply remove all rookies from the the server and place them in their own separate area, similar to the rookie islands that exist in many other mmos. For game rp purposes I would refer to these systems as a "simulated" eve. This would be a place where rookies could spend a couple of weeks being put through their paces, earn skills, but suffer no real loses. After all, in rl you would never be allowed to fly a plane without logging many hours in a simulator, so why in eve should you be trusted with a spacecraft without spending some time behind a virtual control panel? At the end of the rookies time in the simulator they would be kicked out into eve and certified as being ready for game and perhaps given a some isk and a small frig or destroyer. Of course I would allow players to skip the simulator, but then they do so at their own risk. |

Haulie Berry
209
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:40:00 -
[262] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote:RubyPorto wrote: ***Some people will intentionally try to bait you into a public response by messing with rookies in SOE systems now that you announced you might respond publicly.
This is what scares me. We all know, without a doubt, that there are people that when told not to do something will do it because they were told not to. Saying don't do this or we'll do this is only an invitation to some people to do exactly that. If I had to be totally honest here, I'd say that adults are just giant children who take their fun more seriously. Which means that some people are going to take their rebelling more seriously. This is why you don't set up a policy of "If you make us mad, we'll X" unless X is so terrible that you achieve the chilling effect you need. Rome did that. They said "If you molest a Roman Citizen, we'll burn down your Towns." That put a chilling effect on molesting Roman Citizens. The GMs aren't willing to burn down the town (IP Ban, whatever), so they need to remain mute on conditional rule changes.
Except it's even worse than that because, depending on one's perspective, it's like saying, "If you molest a Roman Citizen, we'll leave your town alone and burn down someone else's town". |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:41:00 -
[263] - Quote
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). This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |

silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
94
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:41:00 -
[264] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote: However, I stick by my assertion that if you can't define it you code it, and if it's that important to you you WILL code it. Zero development time for something you think is important to the health of the game is not possible. CCP already said that they have plans to improve upon the new player experience. It's only a matter of when, not if.
Coding for 'undefined' is a bit of a challenge. 
Solution (which WILL require Dev time, of course!): Take the GM's ad-hoc rules. Expand them to give a substantial safety margin. Then code them so that when you try to lock up a 'protected' toon, your targetting systems fail - wherever they are.
Maybe add a 'don't be naughty' pop-up.
Solves the problem - you get a lock, it's a vaild target: F1. No lock: Go find someone else. Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:42:00 -
[265] - Quote
Haulie Berry wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote:RubyPorto wrote: ***Some people will intentionally try to bait you into a public response by messing with rookies in SOE systems now that you announced you might respond publicly.
This is what scares me. We all know, without a doubt, that there are people that when told not to do something will do it because they were told not to. Saying don't do this or we'll do this is only an invitation to some people to do exactly that. If I had to be totally honest here, I'd say that adults are just giant children who take their fun more seriously. Which means that some people are going to take their rebelling more seriously. This is why you don't set up a policy of "If you make us mad, we'll X" unless X is so terrible that you achieve the chilling effect you need. Rome did that. They said "If you molest a Roman Citizen, we'll burn down your Towns." That put a chilling effect on molesting Roman Citizens. The GMs aren't willing to burn down the town (IP Ban, whatever), so they need to remain mute on conditional rule changes. Except it's even worse than that because, depending on one's perspective, it's like saying, "If you molest a Roman Citizen, we'll leave your town alone and burn down someone else's town."
Trolling the Pax Romanum. Wonderful. This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
134
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:42:00 -
[266] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:
This is why you don't set up a policy of "If you make us mad, we'll X" unless X is so terrible that you achieve the chilling effect you need.
Rome did that. They said "If you molest a Roman Citizen, we'll burn down your Towns." That put a chilling effect on molesting Roman Citizens.
The GMs aren't willing to burn down the town (IP Ban, whatever), so they need to remain mute on conditional rule changes.
Doesn't work in a game though.
Saying we'll do this if you do that only creates a situation were people will do exactly this to see if you'll do that. The only thing the GM's are doing is putting themselves in a position were they could have to show people that they stick to their guns.
They should have just said that if you keep it up we'll start making the bans harsher, not creating even more safe zone. A safe zone isn't going to hurt the people interested in making CCP do what they say, it's just going to make them giggle that they could make CCP do what they say.
It's the "I dare you" mentallity. Those people are out there, and this policy only gives them motivation. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:44:00 -
[267] - Quote
silens vesica wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote: However, I stick by my assertion that if you can't define it you code it, and if it's that important to you you WILL code it. Zero development time for something you think is important to the health of the game is not possible. CCP already said that they have plans to improve upon the new player experience. It's only a matter of when, not if.
Coding for 'undefined' is a bit of a challenge.  Solution (which WILL require Dev time, of course!): Take the GM's ad-hoc rules. Expand them to give a substantial safety margin. Then code them so that when you try to lock up a 'protected' toon, your targetting systems fail - wherever they are. Maybe add a 'don't be naughty' pop-up. Solves the problem - you get a lock, it's a vaild target: F1. No lock: Go find someone else.
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. This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:45:00 -
[268] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
This is why you don't set up a policy of "If you make us mad, we'll X" unless X is so terrible that you achieve the chilling effect you need.
Rome did that. They said "If you molest a Roman Citizen, we'll burn down your Towns." That put a chilling effect on molesting Roman Citizens.
The GMs aren't willing to burn down the town (IP Ban, whatever), so they need to remain mute on conditional rule changes.
Doesn't work in a game though. Saying we'll do this if you do that only creates a situation were people will do exactly this to see if you'll do that. The only thing the GM's are doing is putting themselves in a position were they could have to show people that they stick to their guns. They should have just said that if you keep it up we'll start making the bans harsher, not creating even more safe zone. A safe zone isn't going to hurt the people interested in making CCP do what they say, it's just going to make them giggle that they could make CCP do what they say. It's the "I dare you" mentallity. Those people are out there, and this policy only gives them motivation.
Good job restating what I said. This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Greg Valanti
Looney Clones
51
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:45:00 -
[269] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Greg Valanti, I don't know where your at in your pirating career. What I'm trying to convey to most people that want to be real pirates, (not the weak bottom feeders) is that when done right in my opinion, there really is quite a lot of isk to be made. But very rarely does it occur in high sec, (some times it does), and I've never seen anyone get rich killing miners and newbys even with 100M isk payouts from goon.
Try infiltrating a medium size corp, earning there trust, then emptying there coffers into your pockets. Really really large isk potential there. Some of the richest players in eve got there fortunes this way.
One last example. I was working with a pirate corp, and joined an industrial low sec corp. They use to mine every Saturday morning. This particular Saturday was D-day so to speak. I was flying a cruiser guarding the mining fleet, as my pirate corp was preparing to invade the system. All my mids were fit with warp scramblers, I scrambled (2) Orcas, and (3) hulks as my friends jumped in to engage. Needless to say, we had a lot of fun, no one ejected that day. But it was a lot of fun, and the take wasn't to bad.
Killing beginners in any fashion really isn't where it's at, in my most humble opinion. Good Luck
I truly don't understand how your post is relevant to the issues I was trying to discuss. If you look at my KB activity you will see anything recent has been in lowsec or WH space, but that is besides the point.
The discussion is not about career choice, the ethics of shooting rookies, or piracy at all. Chloe, one of our new recruits, was warned by a GM, prior to joining us, for having fought in a rookie system. Chloe is barely a month old, was in a T1 frigate, and killed another player several weeks older in a T1 cruiser.
Now even rookies are getting warnings for shooting more veteran players in these systems. While the GMs will state that they can tell who is and is not a new player rather than a new character, I am willing to bet that this is not checked or followed up on 98% of the time.
There is no easy answer to the problems being caused by this policy. It is going to require a lot of work on the NPE team's end. |

Makkal Hanaya
Drakenburg
110
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:50:00 -
[270] - Quote
silens vesica wrote: While I don't disagree, I will note that this puts a heavy chill on a whole lot of popular Empire Space activities - It's basically creating a 'landmine' problem. If you can't at least approximately identify a 'rookie,' then any aggressive act against a rather broad class of characters risks a ban.
I don't think it's a landmine problem.
I did my trial account after Incarna came out and during my trial I was contacted by not one, but four GMs who wanted to make sure I was understanding the game and not being griefed. The rookie help channel was full of people having difficulties - someone had flipped their can, or they got shot at or CONCORD'd and didn't understand how this had happened, or someone was in their mission stealing their Dagon, what to do?!
For 90% of the player base, this is background noise, but the GMs are dealing with this on a daily basis.
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.
If someone's been operating in Empire space and never gotten in trouble for 'messing with rookies,' the chance that they'll suddenly get banned is rather low.
Are their a few outliners? Yes, but that's true of all rule enforcement. And it doesn't help that when people come on the forum to complain about a GM's actions, they tend to give a very skewed accounting of what happened. although my eyes were open they might have just as well've been closed
|
|

Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
134
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:50:00 -
[271] - Quote
silens vesica wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote: However, I stick by my assertion that if you can't define it you code it, and if it's that important to you you WILL code it. Zero development time for something you think is important to the health of the game is not possible. CCP already said that they have plans to improve upon the new player experience. It's only a matter of when, not if.
Coding for 'undefined' is a bit of a challenge.  Solution (which WILL require Dev time, of course!): Take the GM's ad-hoc rules. Expand them to give a substantial safety margin. Then code them so that when you try to lock up a 'protected' toon, your targetting systems fail - wherever they are. Maybe add a 'don't be naughty' pop-up. Solves the problem - you get a lock, it's a vaild target: F1. No lock: Go find someone else.
My idea is to give them the immunity that CCP wants them to have so that they can learn the game, and that actually takes into account the actions have repercussion philosophy of the game.
A timer that counts down and is negated when specffic actions are taken. Enter a system below a specific threshold, put an amount of market value items in your hold, take an agressive action against another player, or anything else that would be deemed as a non rookie action. Of course all these things should first have a warning so the palyer knows it will happen if they proceed.
The stated rule is fine, but once they start actually doing more refining of the new player experience you've got to take it out of the players hands. Threats don't work. |
|

GM Homonoia
Game Masters C C P Alliance
753

 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:52:00 -
[272] - Quote
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.
Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master |
|

Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
134
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:52:00 -
[273] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
This is why you don't set up a policy of "If you make us mad, we'll X" unless X is so terrible that you achieve the chilling effect you need.
Rome did that. They said "If you molest a Roman Citizen, we'll burn down your Towns." That put a chilling effect on molesting Roman Citizens.
The GMs aren't willing to burn down the town (IP Ban, whatever), so they need to remain mute on conditional rule changes.
Doesn't work in a game though. Saying we'll do this if you do that only creates a situation were people will do exactly this to see if you'll do that. The only thing the GM's are doing is putting themselves in a position were they could have to show people that they stick to their guns. They should have just said that if you keep it up we'll start making the bans harsher, not creating even more safe zone. A safe zone isn't going to hurt the people interested in making CCP do what they say, it's just going to make them giggle that they could make CCP do what they say. It's the "I dare you" mentallity. Those people are out there, and this policy only gives them motivation. Good job restating what I said. I apologize, I read it wrong. Half my brain and face are in agony today. I'm struggling just to make sense of my keyboard, let alone reading comprehension. |

Makkal Hanaya
Drakenburg
110
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:55:00 -
[274] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: 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).
I remembered the log-in name and was able to reset the password.
You can't delete accounts (that I know of) and having a bunch of trials forever floating in the aether would bother me to no end. Besides, I liked my trial and knew I wanted a long-term sub; it just took me a while until I had the time and right mindset for really getting into the game. although my eyes were open they might have just as well've been closed
|

silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
95
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:56:00 -
[275] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:silens vesica wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote: However, I stick by my assertion that if you can't define it you code it, and if it's that important to you you WILL code it. Zero development time for something you think is important to the health of the game is not possible. CCP already said that they have plans to improve upon the new player experience. It's only a matter of when, not if.
Coding for 'undefined' is a bit of a challenge.  Solution (which WILL require Dev time, of course!): Take the GM's ad-hoc rules. Expand them to give a substantial safety margin. Then code them so that when you try to lock up a 'protected' toon, your targetting systems fail - wherever they are. Maybe add a 'don't be naughty' pop-up. Solves the problem - you get a lock, it's a vaild target: F1. No lock: Go find someone else. 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. *shrug* It's not conceptually difficult to set flags for 'system,' 'age of toon,' 'number of SP,' 'age of account,' and any other criteria which the GMs feel appropriate. Not seeing the code, I dunno about the actual difficulty, but I'm fairly certain it's a damnsight easier than coding for, say, CrimeWatch.
And yes, I know she's got no dev time for this little project - which is kinda what makes it inadvasable to play with with this subject all: If you're not willing to discuss the details of the criteria, then don't bring it up!
The "we've got guidelines, no you can't know 'em, but we'll hammer you if you break 'em" approach constitutes trolling, IMO. Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing. |

Trappist Monk
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
7
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:01:00 -
[276] - Quote
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. what happened to considering my idea, since your long list (with the capitalized PLAYER and CHARACTER) seem to be responding to my argument.
Quote:How about:
a straight rule for the vets, using an offical announcement: * No PvP with, stealing from, can baiting, griefing, spamming, or scamming of new characters who are 14 days or less old in rookie systems.
for the "real" rookies, using a last page after character creation but before entering game (or, if that needs development time, using one of those warning message boxes for system events): * EVE is based on non-consensual PvP. You will have limited protection from combat and piracy inside your starting system for 14 days. If you leave the starting system or your 14 days expire, you are a valid target and a willing participant. No need for exceptions. You leave the system, you're a target. Feel free to change the # of days, but thats the same as a trial period. |

Cutter Isaacson
Peace N Quiet
482
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:03:00 -
[277] - Quote
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 a 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. Numbers of terminally stupid people seem to be on the increase, I suggest we have a real life Stupidageddon to rectify this issue. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:04:00 -
[278] - Quote
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. This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Cutter Isaacson
Peace N Quiet
482
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:07:00 -
[279] - Quote
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. Numbers of terminally stupid people seem to be on the increase, I suggest we have a real life Stupidageddon to rectify this issue. |

Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
135
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:09:00 -
[280] - Quote
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
95
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:10:00 -
[281] - Quote
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. |

Ana Vyr
Vyral Technologies
314
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:17:00 -
[282] - Quote
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
Looney Clones
51
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:19:00 -
[283] - Quote
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 their 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
213
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:26:00 -
[284] - Quote
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.
|

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
8
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:28:00 -
[285] - Quote
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
7948
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:34:00 -
[286] - Quote
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 GG#Here There Be DragonsGG% 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 GGv e.g. no required lootable items. This is not a policy GGv 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 GGv for everyone GGv about an easily available and categorically true rule set. GG#If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GkmvGkm you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GG%
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|

Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
68
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:37:00 -
[287] - Quote
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
Avalon Project Shadow Rock Alliance
301
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:41:00 -
[288] - Quote
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 GG#Here There Be DragonsGG% 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 GGv e.g. no required lootable items. This is not a policy GGv 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 GGv for everyone GGv about an easily available and categorically true rule set. 1000x this Fix FW ! |

Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
68
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:43:00 -
[289] - Quote
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 GG#Here There Be DragonsGG% 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 GGv e.g. no required lootable items. This is not a policy GGv 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 GGv for everyone GGv about an easily available and categorically true rule set.
This is spot on. |

Marcus Caspius
Vitriol Ventures Tribal Dragons
47
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:49:00 -
[290] - Quote
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
|
|

Ris Dnalor
Black Rebel Rifter Club
354
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:55:00 -
[291] - Quote
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
Drakenburg
113
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:06:00 -
[292] - Quote
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. although my eyes were open they might have just as well've been closed
|

Iskawa Zebrut
Smoke to Train - Train to Smoke
7
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:12:00 -
[293] - Quote
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
Avalon Project Shadow Rock Alliance
302
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:13:00 -
[294] - Quote
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. Fix FW ! |

Makkal Hanaya
Drakenburg
113
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:26:00 -
[295] - Quote
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. although my eyes were open they might have just as well've been closed
|

Grinder2210
Kaotic Intentions Cold Hand of Shadow
1
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:40:00 -
[296] - Quote
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 GG#Here There Be DragonsGG% 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 GGv e.g. no required lootable items. This is not a policy GGv 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 GGv for everyone GGv about an easily available and categorically true rule set.
On the money |

Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
30
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:53:00 -
[297] - Quote
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? |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
9
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:57:00 -
[298] - Quote
Just leave the rookies alone, just seems so hard for some to bare. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7959
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:59:00 -
[299] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Just leave the rookies alone, just seems so hard for some to bare. Define GG#rookieGG%. GG#If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GkmvGkm you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GG%
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1889
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:02:00 -
[300] - Quote
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.
And there we have it. A perfect, 100% sensitive rule for protecting newbies. Calling Everyone in a newbie system a newbie is an acceptable result, since all we're asking for is a Concrete answer to "What constitutes a newbie, in a Newbie system." This is to avoid landmines. We don't like landmines; we like mines that have big blinking lights. If there's no way for you to clearly define a newbie to the public, then say EVERYONE is, and enforce that.
Hulk gets ganked; enforce it. 9 year old ibis gets ganked; enforce it. 2 day old ibis with a plex gets ganked; enforce it. Keep enforcement as regular as humanly possible so that it's crystal clear.
If you can spare the Dev time, a Here Be Dragons popup for older players entering newbie systems wouldn't be out of sorts.
Basically, One way or another, the GM team needs to create a crystal clear definition of a protected character (newbie) using publicly viewable information. If that's everyone in the system, so be it. That's an acceptable, though not ideal, result. This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |
|

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
9
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:21:00 -
[301] - Quote
Well, it's not someone hauling around 25 Billion isk in assets. Not trying to be rude here, but your either stupid, or playing stupid. I mean that in the most sincere & respectful way. I just think your playing stupid, to try to make a point. I understand the point, and disagree, discretion needs to be exercised, period!!! If you think this is |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7959
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:28:00 -
[302] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Well, it's not someone hauling around 25 Billion isk in assets. Why not? What about him precludes him from being a rookie?
Quote:Not trying to be rude here, but your either stupid, or playing stupid. No, I'm explaining to you why your categorical statement is useless: because it either offers zero protection or it protects the wrong people by creating massive exploits that are far bigger a problem than the ganking of newbies could ever be.
You're trying to forbid something without defining what is forbidden. That's a horrible and untenable solution that only creates more problems.
And no, discretion isn't really needed. You can easily create a rule that offers the required protection while still being crystal clear and without creating all those exploits and loop holes. GG#If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GkmvGkm you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GG%
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
9
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:33:00 -
[303] - Quote
In your opinion, I respect it. I just don't agree with it, "Respectfully". Further more if you can't actually make the distinction in what makes a new player carrying 25B isk in assets, not a rookie then your whole prospective, and position comes to me as highly in question. Just being honest here. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1889
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:35:00 -
[304] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Well, it's not someone hauling around 25 Billion isk in assets. Not trying to be rude here, but your either stupid, or playing stupid. I mean that in the most sincere & respectful way. I just think your playing stupid, to try to make a point. I understand the point, and disagree, discretion needs to be exercised, period!!! If you think this is to difficult, I can't help ya. By the way Ruby, just so you know, there isn't a thing that is crystal clear in the land of EvE. It's all pretty murky. I disagree 100% with what you say, I give the GM's there leeway. I trust them completely in this area. They have the tools, and the methodology to find out when a rat is a rat.
1) A million grains of sand is a heap. 2) A heap of sand, minus one grain is still a heap.
Repeated application of premise two to premise one results in one grain of sand being a heap. Zero grains of sand being a heap, and negative grains of sand being a heap.
This is Sorities Paradox.
1) A person with 10,000,000 SP/25billion ISK is not a rookie. 2) A non-rookie with one fewer SP or ISK is still not a rookie.
Repeated application of premise two, yadda, yadda, yadda.
If there is a bright line between rookie and not-rookie, please, Montressor, point it out to me, because I don't see any such bright line using publicly viewable information.
As for trusting the GMs, that's not the issue here. The issue is not knowing if I am going to be banned for shooting someone because there is no way for ME to know if my target is someone the GM's consider to be a rookie or not. I may have different interpretations of what is "obviously" a rookie than the GMs because we are working from different information. This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1890
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:38:00 -
[305] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:In your opinion, I respect it. I just don't agree with it, "Respectfully". Further more if you can't actually make the distinction in what makes a new player carrying 25B isk in assets, not a rookie then your whole prospective, and position comes to me as highly in question. Just being honest here.
Define what a Rookie IS. Don't just list examples of what it is not.
You'll find it much harder to be categorical. This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |

silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
95
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:39:00 -
[306] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: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. And there we have it. A perfect, 100% sensitive rule for protecting newbies. Calling Everyone in a newbie system a newbie is an acceptable result, since all we're asking for is a Concrete answer to "What constitutes a newbie, in a Newbie system." This is to avoid landmines. We don't like landmines; we like mines that have big blinking lights. If there's no way for you to clearly define a newbie to the public, then say EVERYONE is, and enforce that. Hulk gets ganked; enforce it. 9 year old ibis gets ganked; enforce it. 2 day old ibis with a plex gets ganked; enforce it. Keep enforcement as regular as humanly possible so that it's crystal clear. . This works. A bit dracnionan, but entirely functional, easily understood, and no rules-lawyering. Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7959
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:45:00 -
[307] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Further more if you can't actually make the distinction in what makes a new player carrying 25B isk in assets, not a rookie then your whole prospective, and position comes to me as highly in question. You didn't answer the question: what is it that precludes the guy carrying the 25bn cargo from being a rookie?
Why do you feel that it's ok for me to blow him up and make him sour on the game and quit before his third week is up, when you think it's hideously wicked and evil to blow someone else with the same amount of game knowledge up and make him sour on the game and quit before his third week. What separates one from the other? Why is it ok, by you, to grief some rookies and not others?
Look, it's very simple. It took me maybe 30 seconds to figure out how the goons will massively exploit your rule to provide safety for all their assets and get you banned in the process. In the same time that it took me to figure it out, the goons, who are much better at being goons than I am, will not just have figured it out, but also written an extensive wiki on it, created the scam website, set up the blind accounts, and laughed themselves into a coma from how easy that one was to twist into something completely unwholesome. GG#If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GkmvGkm you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GG%
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|

Haulie Berry
209
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:20:00 -
[308] - Quote
Quote: Further more if you can't actually make the distinction in what makes a new player carrying 25B isk in assets, not a rookie then your whole prospective, and position comes to me as highly in question. .
If what makes that character definitely, for sure, 100% not a rookie is so easy to define, why don't you simply do that instead of insisting that one should "just know"? |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
9
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:20:00 -
[309] - Quote
Right. Well doesn't it seem pretty obvious that a genuine rook wouldn't gave 25B Isk worth of anything. Hmm. How would a real beginner player lay his hands on that kind of scratch. Hmm . Man I honestly don't think you get this, really. I'd like to see someone live there lives with out a little discretion. I guess discretion and EvE just don't match up very well eh. I have my opinions, you have yours, we don't agree, let's just drop it . |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1890
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:21:00 -
[310] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Right. Well doesn't it seem pretty obvious that a genuine rook wouldn't gave 25B Isk worth of anything. Hmm. How would a real beginner player lay his hands on that kind of scratch. Hmm . Man I honestly don't think you get this, really. I'd like to see someone live there lives with out a little discretion. I guess discretion and EvE just don't match up very well eh. I have my opinions, you have yours, we don't agree, let's just drop it .
Define a "Rookie." Stop with the red herring examples of "Not Rookie."
Define what it IS. This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |
|

Haulie Berry
209
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:25:00 -
[311] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Right. Well doesn't it seem pretty obvious that a genuine rook wouldn't gave 25B Isk worth of anything. Hmm. How would a real beginner player lay his hands on that kind of scratch.
It's not at all outside the realm of possibility. Somewhat improbable, but a new player could very well luck their way into a poorly managed corporation with a substantial amount of assets. 25B could be attained as easily as someone failing to lockdown a high value blueprint or two.
|

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7963
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:35:00 -
[312] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Right. Well doesn't it seem pretty obvious that a genuine rook wouldn't gave 25B Isk worth of anything. Why is that? What about him precludes him from being a rookie?
Quote:Man I honestly don't think you get this, really. GG*and I honestly think that you can't answer the question and are stalling. This rather highlights the entire problem with your rule: it arbitrarily and for no apparent reason lets me gank some rookies but not others, even though both are equally new, with equal (lack of) knowledge about the game, and with the same result of the gank (them being fed up and quitting before their third week).
Haulie Berry wrote:It's not at all outside the realm of possibility. Somewhat improbable, but a new player could very well luck their way into a poorly managed corporation with a substantial amount of assets. 25B could be attained as easily as someone failing to lockdown a high value blueprint or two. For that one, you could arguably say that he has managed to get himself into a corp and is now fair game since he'll be a valid target of wardecs anyway.
I'm thinking more along the lines ofGG*
GG#Oh hai newbie. I'm from GoonWaffe GGv maybe you've heard of us? Want to join? It's not hard GGv you just have to haul this package from A to B as a kind of test that you're past the tutorials, and if you make it, you're in! Go to goon-newbie-scamhaulers.com and check out where to go and whom to talk to.GG%
Genuine newbie; know so little about the game that he doesn't even spot the obvious scam; attacking him is a horrible offence because he's still just barely able to use jump gates. So either people don't and the goons get free/safe hauls, or the guy ganking him is tossed out of the game. Win-win.
GG*alternatively, the GMs have to not apply the GG#don't kill newbiesGG% rule in this case and have to allow people to kill them. But only someGG* because not all genuine rookies are to be treated as genuine rookies. GG#If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GkmvGkm you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GG%
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:39:00 -
[313] - Quote
OK listen, Let's just say I support CCP on this one. I'm fine with it being handled on a case by case basis. Your preaching to the wrong quire. I unlike you have no problem figuring this one out. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7963
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:41:00 -
[314] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:I unlike you have no problem figuring this one out. No. Unlike me, you have no imagination when it comes to the huge room for exploitation your useless and undefined rule opens up.
You're also having problems seeing that a far better solution can be had by simply not even trying to make any of these distinctions, but rather let the same GGv ridiculously clear GGv rules apply to everyone equally. GG#If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GkmvGkm you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GG%
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|

Haulie Berry
209
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:44:00 -
[315] - Quote
Tippia wrote:For that one, you could arguably say that he has managed to get himself into a corp and is now fair game since he'll be a valid target of wardecs anyway.
I don't know, it's not hard to get into some corps. On that note, though, what would the verdict then be if a rookie were recruited and corpkilled?
If we're saying that getting oneself into a corp defines one as no longer a "valid" rookie... |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:50:00 -
[316] - Quote
Naa, you r just good at speewing words all over the place to mask you personnel short comings.
I will say this, if a weak ship went by me anywhere, that wasn't friendly, say a (2) day old player with 5B isk in his cargo hold, he would be KABOOOM, just like that. I'd do it for the ISK period. I can think of dozens of situations where I personally wouldn't think twice bout killing a newer player. I personally feel I could make a mistake, and would live with the warning, or consequences. But I feel pretty confident in my ability in identifying who's actually new, and who is pretending. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7964
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:53:00 -
[317] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Naa, you r just good at speewing words all over the place to mask you personnel short comings. Why would I need to mask that? SLOPS is a corp of four, and we rather enjoy those shortcomings in personnel. Not hat they're particularly large GGv it's a fairly well-rounded group.
Quote:But I feel pretty confident in my ability in identifying who's actually new, and who is pretending. How would you identify the fact that the poor goon-scammed newbie I envision isn't pretending? GG#If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GkmvGkm you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GG%
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|

Olleybear
I R' Carebear
90
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:54:00 -
[318] - Quote
You've got to be kidding me. People still trying to figure out what is or is not a rookie?
Fast losing respect for some people who were sensible in the past who keep trying to get a definition of what a rookie is or is not.
The argument to define a rookie is sounding like this. You get caught for speeding and your argument to the judge is, "But your honor, theres no speed limit on the berm!"
The Gm has given you his answer, repeatedly. Now deal with it like a grown up. When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7964
 |
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:58:00 -
[319] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:You've got to be kidding me. People still trying to figure out what is or is not a rookie? No. We're using it as an illustration why any rule that relies on that kind of inherently unclear determination is destined to cause nothing but grief and increased GM workload.
Quote:The Gm has given you his answer, repeatedly. Now deal with it like a grown up. The GMs also asked for better policy suggestions. Deal with it.
GG#If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GkmvGkm you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GG%
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|

Olleybear
I R' Carebear
90
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:00:00 -
[320] - Quote
I've been told now!  When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life. |
|

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:01:00 -
[321] - Quote
Think we could all agree that if a two day old player joined any player owned corp, that there kinda taking there training wheels off and throwing them away. LOL. Honestly wouldn't that be pretty obvious. |

Olleybear
I R' Carebear
90
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:05:00 -
[322] - Quote
But your honor, unless the law says I cant go 250kpm, on the berm, at night, riding a motorcycle, with a donkey on the back, then I clearly CAN do this and should not be ticketed. When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life. |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:07:00 -
[323] - Quote
Tippia your just of a mind set that your simply, (Under the guise of caring) trying to lean this to your specific agenda.
Let me repeat leave the new players alone! Per CCP
I'm leavin bye
PS Olleybear, I love that guy! your turn to work with the village wise men, (and women) for a while. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7964
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:10:00 -
[324] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Tippia your just of a mind set that your simply, (Under the guise of caring) trying to lean this to your specific agenda. Oh really? What agenda is that, exactly? GG#If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GkmvGkm you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GG%
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|

Haulie Berry
209
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:12:00 -
[325] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Think we could all agree that if a two day old player joined any player owned corp, that there kinda taking there training wheels off and throwing them away. LOL. Honestly wouldn't that be pretty obvious.
Why would that be the case?
I was once "recruited" into a corp whose recruitment strategy consisted of email-spamming anyone in Amarr who was in an NPC corp. The CEO was a hulk pilot, but most assuredly did not know his head from his ass. After the third or fourth spam email, I joined the corp and proceeded to indiscriminately* pop my new corpmates... some of whom were, in fact, legitimate rookie players (in the "haven't yet figured out how to work the overview" sense). Knowlege of gameplay was not magically conferred upon them by the act of having joined a corp. Most of them probably figured, "Hey, these people are promising to help me out with isk and experience if I join them - sounds like a pretty sweet deal, why not?" The notion that one of their fellow corpmates could - or would - blow them up hadn't so much as been mentioned to them yet... so why, exactly, would you define those players as not being rookies?
*I did start with the CEO's hulk, though. |

Orly Rly
State War Academy Caldari State
14
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:17:00 -
[326] - Quote
Pretty pathetic that a simple question that quickly get's answered can devolve into a 14 page saga of technicalities and smarm.
It's almost as though the cries of 1,000 nerds were heard at the same time, then, silence.
There are never any nullsec fight threads that are this popular. It makes it clear that much of the playerbase lives off attacking rookies and mining ships. Epic bravery, playerbase is stale and showing off the games age. |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:18:00 -
[327] - Quote
Haulie Berry, you make a damn good point. I too have committed that same act of sin, on more than a few occasions. Damn and I thought I had this all figured out.
Bye for real this time
It is pretty sad indeed |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7964
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:20:00 -
[328] - Quote
Orly Rly wrote:Pretty pathetic that a simple question that quickly get's answered can devolve into a 14 page saga of technicalities and smarm. It's not particularly pathetic, or even the slightest bit strange, when the answers are inconsistent with the published rules and when they cause as many problems as they solve. GG#If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GkmvGkm you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GG%
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|

Olleybear
I R' Carebear
90
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:35:00 -
[329] - Quote
Anyone who wonders why the real world has so many laws that the lawmakers dont even know the total number doesnt have to go any further than reading these threads to understand why.
Some people need the clarity of laws ( rules ) in their lives because they dont have that bone in their head that tells them the difference between what is wrong and what is right.
Others just want to be left alone so they dont have to keep reading law after law that outlaws walking backwards, down a sidewalk, with an icecream cone in their back pocket. When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7964
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:40:00 -
[330] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:Others just want to be left alone so they dont have to keep reading law after law that outlaws walking backwards, down a sidewalk, with an icecream cone in their back pocket. GG*which is exactly what the current ruleset forces you to do, but just to make your job even harder, it does it without telling you about the ice-cream cone.
That's why it would be far better to have a rule that doesn't need those kinds of details, differentiations and discriminations.
GG#If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GkmvGkm you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GG%
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1891
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:41:00 -
[331] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:You've got to be kidding me. People still trying to figure out what is or is not a rookie?
Fast losing respect for some people who were sensible in the past who keep trying to get a definition of what a rookie is or is not.
The argument to define a rookie is sounding like this. You get caught for speeding and your argument to the judge is, "But your honor, theres no speed limit on the berm!"
The Gm has given you his answer, repeatedly. Now deal with it like a grown up.
No, this is like getting caught speeding while running, because nobody's defined "driving".
Messing with Rookies is the offense. We have no problem with a broad, open to interpretation definition of "messing with." It's "rookie" that has to be nailed down. We want to be able to know if shooting someone is alright with the GMs before we shoot them.
If you're so clear as to what a rookie is, please define it for us. This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1891
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:43:00 -
[332] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Tippia your just of a mind set that your simply, (Under the guise of caring) trying to lean this to your specific agenda.
Let me repeat leave the new players alone! Per CCP
I'm leavin bye
PS Olleybear, I love that guy! your turn to work with the village wise men, (and women) for a while.
I repeat. Define new player. Is it younger that 1 year? 6 months? 3 months? 1 month? 2 weeks? 13 days? Define "rookie." This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Desert Ice78
Cobra Kai Dojo WHY so Seri0Us
138
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:46:00 -
[333] - Quote
Reading this thread, my utter contempt for those scrubs styling themselves as (fail-wana-be) hi-sec pvperGGVs continues unabated.
The merest hint of a tightening of the rules and all you pathetic worms descend into a panic of what-ifs and why-this and how ever will we know what a rookie looks like!!
Crawl out from under your rock worm, grow a pair, find a low-sec gate and have all your worries put to rest.
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. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7964
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:54:00 -
[334] - Quote
Desert Ice78 wrote:The merest hint of a tightening of the rules and all you pathetic worms descend into a panic of what-ifs and why-this and how ever will we know what a rookie looks like!! GG*so, in other words, you haven't really read the thread and understood what the issue is. GG#If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GkmvGkm you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GG%
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1891
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:55:00 -
[335] - Quote
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?
We want the protected class to be well defined. We recognize that the prohibited actions will necessarily be broadly defined, but the protected class must be well defined.
Both mine and Tippia's last suggestions were to say that due to the difficulty in concretely defining the protected class, the class will be expanded to include EVERYONE in the protected area. We want newbies protected. We do not want people banned for doing things to people they had no way of knowing were protected.
Again, if you think it's easy to define rookie, define it. This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Olleybear
I R' Carebear
90
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:56:00 -
[336] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Olleybear wrote:You've got to be kidding me. People still trying to figure out what is or is not a rookie?
Fast losing respect for some people who were sensible in the past who keep trying to get a definition of what a rookie is or is not.
The argument to define a rookie is sounding like this. You get caught for speeding and your argument to the judge is, "But your honor, theres no speed limit on the berm!"
The Gm has given you his answer, repeatedly. Now deal with it like a grown up. No, this is like getting caught speeding while running, because nobody's defined "driving". Messing with Rookies is the offense. We have no problem with a broad, open to interpretation definition of "messing with." It's "rookie" that has to be nailed down. We want to be able to know if shooting someone is alright with the GMs before we shoot them. If you're so clear as to what a rookie is, please define it for us.
I figure Its more like getting a ticket for being on the freeway because noone defined what a car is and the person that got the ticket claims they dont know that riding a donkey in 100kph traffic is dangerous. When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1891
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:06:00 -
[337] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Olleybear wrote:You've got to be kidding me. People still trying to figure out what is or is not a rookie?
Fast losing respect for some people who were sensible in the past who keep trying to get a definition of what a rookie is or is not.
The argument to define a rookie is sounding like this. You get caught for speeding and your argument to the judge is, "But your honor, theres no speed limit on the berm!"
The Gm has given you his answer, repeatedly. Now deal with it like a grown up. No, this is like getting caught speeding while running, because nobody's defined "driving". Messing with Rookies is the offense. We have no problem with a broad, open to interpretation definition of "messing with." It's "rookie" that has to be nailed down. We want to be able to know if shooting someone is alright with the GMs before we shoot them. If you're so clear as to what a rookie is, please define it for us. I figure Its more like getting a ticket for being on the freeway because noone defined what a car is and the person that got the ticket claims they dont know that riding a donkey in 100kph traffic is dangerous.
If the statute neglected to include a donkey, then the action was not illegal under that statute. Danger has nothing to do with strict liability laws. You could go after the donkey rider for reckless endangerment though.
You have yet to define rookie.
Wikipedia wrote:Certain rules have traditionally been given for this particular type of definition.
- A definition must set out the essential attributes of the thing defined.
- Definitions should avoid circularity. To define a horse as 'a member of the species equus' would convey no information whatsoever. For this reason, Locking adds that a definition of a term must not comprise of terms which are synonymous with it. This would be a circular definition, a circulus in definiendo. Note, however, that it is acceptable to define two relative terms in respect of each other. Clearly, we cannot define 'antecedent' without using the term 'consequent', nor conversely.
- The definition must not be too wide or too narrow. It must be applicable to everything to which the defined term applies (i.e. not miss anything out), and to nothing else (i.e. not include any things to which the defined term would not truly apply).
- The definition must not be obscure. The purpose of a definition is to explain the meaning of a term which may be obscure or difficult, by the use of terms that are commonly understood and whose meaning is clear. The violation of this rule is known by the Latin term obscurum per obscurius. However, sometimes scientific and philosophical terms are difficult to define without obscurity.
- A definition should not be negative where it can be positive. We should not define 'wisdom' as the absence of folly, or a healthy thing as whatever is not sick. Sometimes this is unavoidable, however. We cannot define a point except as 'something with no parts', nor blindness except as 'the absence of sight in a creature that is normally sighted'.
We keep running afoul of number 5. We can not define a rookie by listing examples of not-rookies.
Positively define "rookie" for me. This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Olleybear
I R' Carebear
90
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:12:00 -
[338] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:
We keep running afoul of number 5. We can not define a rookie by listing examples of not-rookies.
Positively define "rookie" for me.
Why do you need to be told and others do not? When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1891
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:17:00 -
[339] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
We keep running afoul of number 5. We can not define a rookie by listing examples of not-rookies.
Positively define "rookie" for me.
Why do you need to be told and others do not?
I have not been told. I have been told that a Hulk pilot is not, that a pilot with 25b in Tech is not, but further than that, Rookie has not been defined except as "one who you will incur GM wrath for shooting." Which is, I suppose, a constructive definition, but it's not a useful one.
EDIT: Misread.
Because I don't like hidden landmines. They cripple children. In other words, knowing who to avoid shooting allows me to, y'know, avoid shooting them. This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7965
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:18:00 -
[340] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:Why do you need to be told and others do not? Why can't you answer the question?
GG#If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GkmvGkm you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GG%
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|

Olleybear
I R' Carebear
90
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:21:00 -
[341] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Olleybear wrote:Why do you need to be told and others do not? Why can't you answer the question?
Why do you need the question answered for you? Why are you unable to figure it out for yourselves? Why do you need a rule ( law ) to define what is the right thing and what is wrong thing to do. When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7965
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:25:00 -
[342] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:Why do you need the question answered for you? Because the current rule doesn't allow for the distinction between rookies and non-rookies. Because as far as anyone has been able to explain, the current rule lets me gank rookies and prohibits me from ganking non-rookies (which is odd since the intention is rather the opposite).
Quote:Why are you unable to figure it out for yourselves? Because the rule doesn't allow me to, which goes against the point of having the rule to begin with.
Quote:Why do you need a rule ( law ) to define what is the right thing and what is wrong thing to do. So you think we should just remove the rule and allow the wholesale slaughter of rookies?
Why can't you answer the question?
GG#If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GkmvGkm you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GG%
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|

Haulie Berry
209
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:25:00 -
[343] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:Tippia wrote:Olleybear wrote:Why do you need to be told and others do not? Why can't you answer the question? Why do you need the question answered for you? Why are you unable to figure it out for yourselves? Why do you need a rule ( law ) to define what is the right thing and what is wrong thing to do.
If it is as simple and obvious as you are asserting, you should be able to answer it. Why won't you? |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1891
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:26:00 -
[344] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:Tippia wrote:Olleybear wrote:Why do you need to be told and others do not? Why can't you answer the question? Why do you need the question answered for you? Why are you unable to figure it out for yourselves? Why do you need a rule ( law ) to define what is the right thing and what is wrong thing to do.
We don't need what we can do defined. We need who we can do it to.
And we need it so defined because Vaguness has long been held to be a terrible thing in the rule of law.
Both in Europe: "Legal certainty is a principle in national and international law which holds that the law must provide those subject to it with the ability to regulate their conduct. Legal certainty is internationally recognised as a central requirement for the rule of law." And the US: "Void for vagueness is a legal concept in American constitutional law that states that a given statute is void and unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand. There are several ways, senses or reasons a statute might be considered vague. In general, a statute might be called void for vagueness reasons when an average citizen cannot generally determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed."
Again, define "rookie."
We've offered definitions. They're very sensitive, but they lack specificity and would result in a fairly draconian set of rules in rookie systems. This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Olleybear
I R' Carebear
90
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:35:00 -
[345] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Olleybear wrote:Why do you need the question answered for you? Because the current rule doesn't allow for the distinction between rookies and non-rookies. Because as far as anyone has been able to explain, the current rule lets me gank rookies and prohibits me from ganking non-rookies (which is odd since the intention is rather the opposite). Quote:Why are you unable to figure it out for yourselves? Because the rule doesn't allow me to, which goes against the point of having the rule to begin with. Quote:Why do you need a rule ( law ) to define what is the right thing and what is wrong thing to do. So you think we should just remove the rule and allow the wholesale slaughter of rookies? Why can't you answer the question?
I never said or implied for the slaughter of rookies.
My personal definition of rookie:
1- 2 month old player or younger in hi-sec.
Feel free to pick that apart. Look at it with a maginfying glass. Figure out a way to change the meaning of the words so we have to add additional rules and spend even more time on this. Just like in RL where the laws are so numerous and convoluted that every person breaks a few laws everyday and is a criminal. When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1891
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:41:00 -
[346] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:Tippia wrote:Olleybear wrote:Why do you need the question answered for you? Because the current rule doesn't allow for the distinction between rookies and non-rookies. Because as far as anyone has been able to explain, the current rule lets me gank rookies and prohibits me from ganking non-rookies (which is odd since the intention is rather the opposite). Quote:Why are you unable to figure it out for yourselves? Because the rule doesn't allow me to, which goes against the point of having the rule to begin with. Quote:Why do you need a rule ( law ) to define what is the right thing and what is wrong thing to do. So you think we should just remove the rule and allow the wholesale slaughter of rookies? Why can't you answer the question? I never said or implied for the slaughter of rookies. My personal definition of rookie: 1- 2 month old player or younger in hi-sec. Feel free to pick that apart. Look at it with a maginfying glass. Figure out a way to change the meaning of the words so we have to add additional rules and spend even more time on this. Just like in RL where the laws are so numerous and convoluted that every person breaks a few laws everyday and is a criminal.
Which is it, One or Two? What about players with long gaps between their trial and first sub? What about alts with 50 plex in their cargo? This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7965
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:44:00 -
[347] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:I never said or implied for the slaughter of rookies. Yes you did. You implied that we don't need a rule to separate right from wrong. The absence of such a rule will have one consequence: the wholesale slaughter of rookies.
Quote:My personal definition of rookie:
1- 2 month old player or younger in hi-sec. So you would say that the previously envisioned guy in Torrinos with 25bn worth of tech would be an illegal target. GG#If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GkmvGkm you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GG%
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|

Olleybear
I R' Carebear
90
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:55:00 -
[348] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: Which is it, One or Two? What about players with long gaps between their trial and first sub? What about alts with 50 plex in their cargo?
I did that on purpose to point out exactly the route this is leading. It is never specific enough is it.
It is like telling a boy not to hit his sister. So he kicks his sister instead then complains that the rule wasnt specific enough when the parents spanks ( bans ) him.
I will ask again. Why do people need such specific rules to control their behavior. When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1892
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:03:00 -
[349] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:RubyPorto wrote: Which is it, One or Two? What about players with long gaps between their trial and first sub? What about alts with 50 plex in their cargo?
I did that on purpose to point out exactly the route this is leading. It is never specific enough is it. It is like telling a boy not to hit his sister. So he kicks his sister instead then complains that the rule wasnt specific enough when the parents spanks ( bans ) him. I will ask again. Why do people need such specific rules to control their behavior.
Because it's a basic, long held principle of the rule of law.
I say again. We're fine figuring out that kicking is included in the set hitting.
ROOKIE or "Sister" in your analogy is the thing that needs to be defined precisely. If my parents(GMs) told me, "Don't hit your sister(rookies), but everyone else is ok to hit*" and then spank me (ban me) when I hit my long lost sister (someone in the grey area) whom I did not know was my sister(a rookie), I'm going to be confused and angry (and rightly so) because I had no way of knowing who I was not allowed to hit.
*This is what EvE tells us This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7966
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:13:00 -
[350] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:I did that on purpose to point out exactly the route this is leading. It is never specific enough is it. Of course not. So what's the good of having a rule that doesn't provide any kind of enforceable limitations and no guidelines for when it's actually applicable?
By the way, you didn't comment on that rookie example: would you consider it illegal to blow up a rookie with 25bn ISK worth of tech in his carg hold?
Quote:I will ask again. Why do people need such specific rules to control their behavior. Because otherwise, it will be exploited and fail to serve its purpose. Because otherwise, it will limit legitimate gameplay. Because otherwise, it becomes almost completely useless.
We're straying into nirvana fallacy territory here, but that's just it: why construct a rule that is begging for that fallacy (and the opaque and/or unenforceable nature of any attempt to avoid the fallacy) when you could simply construct a rule that doesn't use those kinds of fuzzy and subjective definitions and still achieved the same goal?
And as Ruby keeps pointing out: it's not the behaviour that needs to be controlled GGv it's the context of that behaviour, without which any control, specific or otherwise, becomes meaningless. GG#If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GkmvGkm you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GG%
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:24:00 -
[351] - Quote
If I were CCP, I would make very specific examples of the ones that cant seem to grasp this. I personally think they have every right to let the actions define this. Inspire people to use that thing that resides behind there eyes, to make smart decisions. I hope they leave it as is. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7966
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:36:00 -
[352] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:I hope they leave it as is. So you want them to discriminate against rookies based on reasons we are not privy to and let us kill some rookies but not others, and you want them to include vets under the rookie protection umbrella because the rules are so opaque as to force people not to attack those vets.
Yeah, that seems reasonable compared to a rule that doesn't require anyone on either side of the fence to have to worry about what is and what isn't a rookieGG* 
Whether you mean that or not, it's the situation the rules create, and if you do want to leave it as it is then fine GGv just realise what it is you want to leave as it is. GG#If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GkmvGkm you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GG%
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|

Olleybear
I R' Carebear
90
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:40:00 -
[353] - Quote
I give up.
I too want a rule saying I cant go 250kph, at night, on the berm, while riding a motorcycle, with a donkey on the back. Otherwise I just wont know that I shoudlnt do that.
When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7966
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:44:00 -
[354] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:I too want a rule saying I cant go 250kph, at night, on the berm, while riding a motorcycle, with a donkey on the back. Otherwise I just wont know that I shoudlnt do that. GG*so you still have absolutely no clue what the problem is then.
Yes, you probably should give up at this point if it's that difficult for you.
By the way, the rule you're asking for exists; it is not in any way relevant to the topic at hand, even as a simile.
GG#If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GkmvGkm you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GG%
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1896
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:45:00 -
[355] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:I give up.
I too want a rule saying I cant go 250kph, at night, on the berm, while riding a motorcycle, with a donkey on the back. Otherwise I just wont know that I shoudlnt do that.
You're being intentionally obtuse. You're also using some of the most ridiculous straw men I have ever seen.
We want a Protected Class to be defined. That is all. This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1896
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:48:00 -
[356] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:If I were CCP, I would make very specific examples of the ones that cant seem to grasp this. I personally think they have every right to let the actions define this. Inspire people to use that thing that resides behind there eyes, to make smart decisions. I hope they leave it as is.
So you subscribe to the "Hit the Dog until he heels" method of training. Actually, not even that; that method of training also includes guiding the dog to give it the basic idea. You're suggesting that we get accounts banned repeatedly until we empirically determine the rules of the game we play. Pissing off many multitudes of newbies in the process.
Good plan. This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |

RAP ACTION HERO
87
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 03:42:00 -
[357] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:RubyPorto wrote: Which is it, One or Two? What about players with long gaps between their trial and first sub? What about alts with 50 plex in their cargo?
I did that on purpose to point out exactly the route this is leading. It is never specific enough is it. It is like telling a boy not to hit his sister. So he kicks his sister instead then complains that the rule wasnt specific enough when the parents spanks ( bans ) him. I will ask again. Why do people need such specific rules to control their behavior. so we can leave the rookies alone and shoot the whiners. |

Jack Parr
University of Caille Gallente Federation
66
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:19:00 -
[358] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: We want a Protected Class to be defined. That is all.
You can't define it. Exactly in the same manner that the IRS never defined "Income".
It's funny watching you trying to pad your post count by begging for help in this thread. "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average goon." -a -a-a - The Mittani |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7968
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:20:00 -
[359] - Quote
Jack Parr wrote:You can't define it. GG*and that's why it's a horribly basis for this kind of rule.
GG#If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GkmvGkm you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GG%
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1898
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:22:00 -
[360] - Quote
Jack Parr wrote:RubyPorto wrote: We want a Protected Class to be defined. That is all.
You can't define it. Exactly in the same manner that the IRS never defined "Income". It's funny watching you trying to pad your post count by begging for help in this thread.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/ustax/www/t26-A-1-B-I-61.html
The IRS defines Income very carefully, very exactly, and very publicly.
If you can't define it, you can't protect it. This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |
|

InternetSpaceship
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
28
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:24:00 -
[361] - Quote
I remember joining GoonSwarm as a day old rookie. The moment I went blue to goons, local erupted, and when i undocked intending to self destruct my pod to podjump to VFK, I was targeted by 6 people and just blown apart. I wasn't even in a newbie ship, it was just my pod.
I knew then I was going to love this game. Official Recruiter for GoonSwarm Corporation.
If you paid isk to get into GoonSwarm, you were probably scammed.-a 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. |

Jack Parr
University of Caille Gallente Federation
66
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:24:00 -
[362] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Jack Parr wrote:You can't define it. GG*and that's why it's a horribly basis for this kind of rule.
That's a great idea. Why don't you tell the IRS to stop taxing us because they never defined "income". Let us know how that works out for ya. "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average goon." -a -a-a - The Mittani |

Jack Parr
University of Caille Gallente Federation
67
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:27:00 -
[363] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Jack Parr wrote:RubyPorto wrote: We want a Protected Class to be defined. That is all.
You can't define it. Exactly in the same manner that the IRS never defined "Income". It's funny watching you trying to pad your post count by begging for help in this thread. http://www.fourmilab.ch/ustax/www/t26-A-1-B-I-61.htmlThe IRS defines Income very carefully, very sensitively, and very publicly. Besides that, Income would be the thing we don't mind being loosely defined. "Money" would be the class that we want to have concretely defined. If you can't define it, you can't protect it.
ROFL. That made me chuckle quite a bit. You don't understand the concept of income.
Keep inflating that post count. "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average goon." -a -a-a - The Mittani |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1898
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:28:00 -
[364] - Quote
Jack Parr wrote:Tippia wrote:Jack Parr wrote:You can't define it. GG*and that's why it's a horribly basis for this kind of rule. That's a great idea. Why don't you tell the IRS to stop taxing us because they never defined "income". Let us know how that works out for ya.
You are also being intentionally obtuse.
Your analogy is poor and doesn't fit the case at hand.
Once again, to make a rule that protects a CLASS from certain CONDUCT, you may define the CONDUCT vaguely or specifically, depending on your goals, but assuming your goal is to protect the CLASS, you must define the CLASS well, or the rule will end up hurting members of the CLASS you are trying to protect. This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1898
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:32:00 -
[365] - Quote
Jack Parr wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Jack Parr wrote:RubyPorto wrote: We want a Protected Class to be defined. That is all.
You can't define it. Exactly in the same manner that the IRS never defined "Income". It's funny watching you trying to pad your post count by begging for help in this thread. http://www.fourmilab.ch/ustax/www/t26-A-1-B-I-61.htmlThe IRS defines Income very carefully, very sensitively, and very publicly. Besides that, Income would be the thing we don't mind being loosely defined. "Money" would be the class that we want to have concretely defined. If you can't define it, you can't protect it. ROFL. That made me chuckle quite a bit. You don't understand the concept of income. Keep inflating that post count.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_and_specificity
I think I have a fair idea of what I'm saying. Whenever you see the words "including, but not limited to," you are looking at a sensitive but not specific definition, used to prevent abuse through loopholes created by specificity. The cost of this is the risk of abuse via false positives.
Both Tippia and I have suggested Sensitive but not Specific definitions of the protected class that would allow CCP to protect the class. It was then argued that the Class needs no definition to protect it, which is ridiculous. This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7968
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:35:00 -
[366] - Quote
Jack Parr wrote:That's a great idea. I know.
Quote:Why don't you tell the IRS to stop taxing us because they never defined "income". Looks like they defined it quite well. Beyond that, get a better country, because around here, it's pretty thoroughly defined. GG#If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GkmvGkm you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GG%
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|

Jack Parr
University of Caille Gallente Federation
68
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:48:00 -
[367] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: ...Whenever you see the words "including, but not limited to," you are looking at a sensitive but not specific definition, used to prevent abuse through loopholes created by specificity. The cost of this is the risk of abuse via false positives.
Both Tippia and I have suggested Sensitive but not Specific definitions of the protected class that would allow CCP to protect the class. It was then argued that the Class needs no definition to protect it, which is ridiculous.
It's still funny watching you squirm trying to define something that can't be defined. It's painfully obvious you are just looking to create loopholes to game the system. I doubt if CCP falls for your sophomoric attempt. I think I'm making you and Tippia mad, so I'll just stop replying after this. "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average goon." -a -a-a - The Mittani |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1898
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:53:00 -
[368] - Quote
Jack Parr wrote:RubyPorto wrote: ...Whenever you see the words "including, but not limited to," you are looking at a sensitive but not specific definition, used to prevent abuse through loopholes created by specificity. The cost of this is the risk of abuse via false positives.
Both Tippia and I have suggested Sensitive but not Specific definitions of the protected class that would allow CCP to protect the class. It was then argued that the Class needs no definition to protect it, which is ridiculous.
It's still funny watching you squirm trying to define something that can't be defined. It's painfully obvious you are just looking to create loopholes to game the system. I doubt if CCP falls for your sophomoric attempt. I think I'm making you and Tippia mad, so I'll just stop replying after this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi
Read this. Try again. This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7968
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:55:00 -
[369] - Quote
Jack Parr wrote:It's still funny watching you squirm trying to define something that can't be defined. GG*except, of course, that we are not the ones trying to define anything. We are asking you to define the category of people that needs to be defined in order for the standing rule to work as intended.
Since the consensus is that this cannot be done, we are simply saying that that the rule is inherently flawed both as a control mechanism and as a tool for adjudication.
Your saying that it can't be defined reinforces our point. So thank you for your support. GG#If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GkmvGkm you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GG%
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|

InternetSpaceship
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
28
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:57:00 -
[370] - Quote
I don't see what the problem is here. What he is saying is reasonable. If the devs don't want us messing with rookies, it makes perfect sense that we should have a solid definition of what they consider to be a rookie.
I personally don't really mess with anyone under three months old. Is that a rookie? How can I be sure? Official Recruiter for GoonSwarm Corporation.
If you paid isk to get into GoonSwarm, you were probably scammed.-a 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. |
|

Tysinger
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
11
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:03:00 -
[371] - Quote
wow CCP you really fkn suck Cck now.......
Fck you tards, you should start developing expansion packs for Hello Kitty Island Adventure.
PUSSIES |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:27:00 -
[372] - Quote
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. |

Kara Books
Deal with IT.
159
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:29:00 -
[373] - Quote
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. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1902
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:32:00 -
[374] - Quote
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? This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:34:00 -
[375] - Quote
Kara Books Like a breath of fresh air.
It doesn't need to be crystal clear, this is simply your opinion, nothing more. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1902
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:34:00 -
[376] - Quote
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.
We agree. But you have to tell those players who want to shoot other players which players they're not allowed to shoot. This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1511
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:39:00 -
[377] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: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?
On the flip side, getting concrete definitions is what you hire lawyers for. Does CCP want to get into space lawyering and trying to nail that slab of jelly to the wall?
How about this: if you want to gank people risk-free, stay out of rookie systems. The definition of rookie needs to be vague otherwise the wannabe gankers will attempt to game the system at the rookie's expense. Day 0 advice for new players: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=77176 |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1902
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:40:00 -
[378] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:And no you don't, it can be implied
Not if you want the prohibition to be effective. This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1902
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:43:00 -
[379] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:RubyPorto wrote: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? On the flip side, getting concrete definitions is what you hire lawyers for. Does CCP want to get into space lawyering and trying to nail that slab of jelly to the wall? How about this: if you want to gank people risk-free, stay out of rookie systems. The definition of rookie needs to be vague otherwise the wannabe gankers will attempt to game the system at the rookie's expense.
As I already posted, If CCP wants to define everyone in a Rookie system as a Rookie, and is willing to enforce that ruling, THAT'S OK BY ME.
It will have a number of bad effects, mostly harming real rookies, but it's a definition, and that's all we want. A Definition of a Rookie.
If you want to protect whatsits, you have to tell the whosit hunters the difference between a whosit and a whatsit. This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Kara Books
Deal with IT.
159
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:47:00 -
[380] - Quote
RubyPorto 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. We agree. But you have to tell those players who want to shoot other players which players they're not allowed to shoot.
Badman gets punished on a case by case basis, guy with no record, fumbling around gets first positive intervention in the game, be it from a Dev, another player GM...
Mostly, I agree, but I wouldn't like to see this become some kind of a medical institution with white walls and barred windows meant to punish or somehow remove aspects of the game from the new player, they should be protected in every way possible.
for the particularly hard headed Cell mates with an internet connection out there, once they are flagged as newbie griefers, the rules should be mailed to them, they should sign it and no one else needs to shoulder the blame or grief, this is both private and humane. |
|

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:49:00 -
[381] - Quote
Fortunately for everyone Ruby, you don't establish game policy. I'm glad you don't. I trust CCP in this matter way more than you.
|

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1902
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:50:00 -
[382] - Quote
Kara Books wrote:
Badman gets punished on a case by case basis, guy with no record, fumbling around gets first positive intervention in the game, be it from a Dev, another player GM...
Mostly, I agree, but I wouldn't like to see this become some kind of a medical institution with white walls and barred windows meant to punish or somehow remove aspects of the game from the new player, they should be protected in every way possible.
for the particularly hard headed Cell mates with an internet connection out there, once they are flagged as newbie griefers, the rules should be mailed to them, they should sign it and no one else needs to shoulder the blame or grief, this is both private and humane.
You're skipping right over the issue. The issue is "How do we bloody tell who we're not allowed to shoot when you won't tell us who's protected?" This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1902
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:52:00 -
[383] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Fortunately for everyone Ruby, you don't establish game policy. I'm glad you don't. I trust CCP in this matter way more than you.
And they asked us for help in creating a policy that protects Newbies* and doesn't smack people down by surprise. That "by surprise" thing is problematic when you want to protect newbies* in the first place.
*term yet to be defined. This is EVE. -a Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Kara Books
Deal with IT.
159
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:55:00 -
[384] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Kara Books wrote:
Badman gets punished on a case by case basis, guy with no record, fumbling around gets first positive intervention in the game, be it from a Dev, another player GM...
Mostly, I agree, but I wouldn't like to see this become some kind of a medical institution with white walls and barred windows meant to punish or somehow remove aspects of the game from the new player, they should be protected in every way possible.
for the particularly hard headed Cell mates with an internet connection out there, once they are flagged as newbie griefers, the rules should be mailed to them, they should sign it and no one else needs to shoulder the blame or grief, this is both private and humane.
You're skipping right over the issue. The issue is "How do we bloody tell who we're not allowed to shoot when you won't tell us who's protected?"
Well, lets say we had the first rule, a Trial account. being a rule, How would a griefer be able to tell without exposing information the newbie may want to keep private?
I believe its not the rules themselves, its protecting the Sovriety and game experience of both the Griefer and the Newbie. |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 06:01:00 -
[385] - Quote
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. |

InternetSpaceship
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
28
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 06:08:00 -
[386] - Quote
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. Official Recruiter for GoonSwarm Corporation.
If you paid isk to get into GoonSwarm, you were probably scammed.-a 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. |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 06:14:00 -
[387] - Quote
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?
|

Kara Books
Deal with IT.
159
 |
Posted - 2012.06.15 06:19:00 -
[388] - Quote
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 superc |