Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Torvin Yulus
State War Academy Caldari State
50
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 14:40:00 -
[31] - Quote
you sre the rookies liten to the ccp crulebook
rhe ccp rulebook gives rhem the ideas
so whaT WE need to do is make the rulebookm thicker so that it cant be listend to as fast and then its fized im a pubby and im proud |
Tah'ris Khlador
Space Ghosts. Break-A-Wish Foundation
179
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 14:40:00 -
[32] - Quote
ShipToaster wrote: It becomes a little more blurred when you realise that noobs can be at war and get killed by their war targets in a noob system while doing the SOE arc. Do you get a ban for killing war targets who are so stupid they go do the noob arc while at war?
No, previously it was stated that a rookie who joins a corp that is at war (or goes to war) is not subject to the same protections as any rookie not participating in a corp that has war activities. Similarly, a faction warfare rookie is still subject to dying to faction warfare. |
stoicfaux
1507
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 14:50:00 -
[33] - Quote
HTFU and adapt. The griefers should start trial accounts (aka "newbies,") run the SOE arc, loot the griefer's can, get exploded, and then petition to get the griefer banned.
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9264
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 15:03:00 -
[34] - Quote
Tah'ris Khlador wrote:No, previously it was stated that a rookie who joins a corp that is at war (or goes to war) is not subject to the same protections as any rookie not participating in a corp that has war activities. Similarly, a faction warfare rookie is still subject to dying to faction warfare. GǪand this was the origin of Pipa's and my argument for clarity. The exceptions are part of the problem.
CCP wants to reserve the right to toss people out at their own discretion for messing with the company's long-term livelihood (i.e. new players). What we're saying is that they can do this and still maintain a crystal clear definition of what's allowed and what isn't. The way to go about this is to very clearly define who the protected class is, and all the kind of GÇ£common senseGÇ¥ arguments do indeed blur that line. Sure, a newbie that is in a corp is logically a legal target, so that's a sensible exception, but how many of those are there? Before long, the list of exception will be quite large and will, in and of itself, blur the line even if each exception on its own is clear enough.
Now add in the simple fact that older players will try to take advantage of those newbies to piggy-back on their protection and/or expose them to dangers they should really be protected against. Is the poor newbie I've tricked into carrying 50 PLEX for me a legal target or are you messing with newbies when you blow him up and take his stuff? So our solution was to simply not try to define the category based on player or toon characteristics that will require any such exceptions, and in such a way that there is nothing left for older players to exploit. Thus we arrived at that final suggestion: define the protected class by geography, not by character. Explain to the rookies that right now, they are protected. Beyond these borders, that protection ceases, please press [Yes] / [No] to take the leap (or not).
We can have it both ways, but for some reason, CCP wants to make everything unclear even though they'd still have full discretion even with clear rulesGǪ because the rules already clearly give them that discretion. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Vera Algaert
Republic University Minmatar Republic
337
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 15:07:00 -
[35] - Quote
Tippia wrote: Their unwillingness to clearly state the rules they're going to enforce means they create loopholes because no-one will know what to report and what not to. What game are you playing...
can't say that i have seen anything that would indicate a willingness of players to hit the petition button in the EVE I play - derped and lost your super? petition for reimbursement; afk cloaky in system? everybody report him as bot; lottery ads in local too annyoing? report isk spam; hostiles spamming local? report all of them for profanity - CCP's bar for "abuse of the petition system" seems to be very high and as a result players tend to report all the things.
Claiming that they will not report something that might give them even a slight in-game advantage or cause some other person grief if the report is acted upon just because they are not 100% certain if it really does violate the rules is absurd. I'm a NPC corp alt, any argument I make is invalid. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9264
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 15:11:00 -
[36] - Quote
Vera Algaert wrote:What game are you playing... I'm talking about the newbies who already don't know their rights. The explicit decision to not tell them this is why the problem exist.
You're talking about older players who have learned to play the system (something that they can do in part due to the lack of clarity). GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
947
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 15:19:00 -
[37] - Quote
This thread again?
CCP - Rookie System Rules Clarification
|
Tah'ris Khlador
Space Ghosts. Break-A-Wish Foundation
179
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 16:55:00 -
[38] - Quote
While I appreciate your posting in this thread, maybe read a bit? Last time Arnon was officially listed as a rookie system following the thread. The rest of the Arc is now being officially treated as rookie friendly, without the page being updated. The rookie system rules clarification does not apply in this case because those same rookie rules are being enforced in all aspects of the Epic Arc, not just the defined rookie systems. |
Tah'ris Khlador
Space Ghosts. Break-A-Wish Foundation
179
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 16:56:00 -
[39] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Vera Algaert wrote:What game are you playing... I'm talking about the newbies who already don't know their rights. The explicit decision to not tell them this is why the problem exist. You're talking about older players who have learned to play the system (something that they can do in part due to the lack of clarity).
I would argue that they probably won't find the page listing the rookie system and those rules when they first start regardless, unless it's shoved in their face on day one. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9264
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 17:00:00 -
[40] - Quote
Tah'ris Khlador wrote:I would argue that they probably won't find the page listing the rookie system and those rules when they first start regardless, unless it's shoved in their face on day one. GǪas indeed it should be.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|
Idris Helion
University of Caille Gallente Federation
54
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 17:04:00 -
[41] - Quote
Tah'ris Khlador wrote:Can we get this page updated? Apparently the entirety of the SOE epic arc is protected for players under 1 month old now and bans are being given out but this has not been posted. Previously it was just Arnon that was protected in this manner. I support the ruling (I haven't hung around the epic arc in a LONG time), but still feel that if a rule is being enforced, it should be made at least known.
Wasn't that at least in part due to that Socratic dude who made a personal life-mission out of griefing noobs in Arnon? (At least until Zedrik Cayne took him down, anyway.)
|
Tah'ris Khlador
Space Ghosts. Break-A-Wish Foundation
179
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 17:22:00 -
[42] - Quote
Idris Helion wrote:Tah'ris Khlador wrote:Can we get this page updated? Apparently the entirety of the SOE epic arc is protected for players under 1 month old now and bans are being given out but this has not been posted. Previously it was just Arnon that was protected in this manner. I support the ruling (I haven't hung around the epic arc in a LONG time), but still feel that if a rule is being enforced, it should be made at least known. Wasn't that at least in part due to that Socratic dude who made a personal life-mission out of griefing noobs in Arnon? (At least until Zedrik Cayne took him down, anyway.)
Socratic remained in Arnon for a looooong time after he was "brought down" with the smart-bombing trick. (If you don't know to what I'm referring, search YouTube for Socratic's Fall). [EDIT: I should say, he ratted back up very slowly and then returned to Arnon]. Eventually this individual "disappeared" from EVE, never to log in again. The changes for the Epic Arc and SOE is part of refurbishing the New Player Experience and an attempt to improve player retention through the first few weeks of EVE. These changes have taken place a long time after the disappearance of Arnon's most famous occupant. |
Ghost of Truth
State War Academy Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 17:42:00 -
[43] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Andski wrote:"i need to pad my killboard with two week old players in t1 frigates that loot my cans" Socratic is that you?
Is that douche still stuck in that system? |
Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
145
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 17:55:00 -
[44] - Quote
Tippia wrote:What you and Tippia are arguing for isn't protection for rookies Incorrect. We're arguing for protection of those that need to be protected and open season on those who try to hide behind that protection when they're not entitled to it. We want the guilty to be sanctioned. We also don't want cowards to hide behind CCP's skirts.[/quote]
As previously noted, rules don't protect anyone, they provide for punishment for the guilty. What you're arguing for will only serve to provide a "defense" for folks who want to screw with people they're pretty sure they shouldn't.
Tippia wrote:Quote:If you can't tell what a rookie is ( or want to pretend that's the case), screw with people at your own risk. It's not the rookies that are the problem. It's the old players who will (and do) exploit any protection afforded to the rookies in order to extend that protection to themselves, when the protection isn't meant for them.
You can already take out the old players. Go do it. There's no rule that says you can't.
Like a lot of things in life, if you don't think you should, you probably shouldn't. HTFU, engage at your own risk, usw.
In the end, as usual, you're arguing for nothing at all. |
Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
236
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 18:22:00 -
[45] - Quote
Rules that pertain to normal in game mechanic use need to be coded. If you're trying to improve the new player experience than do it right and code in the rules to help new players. Stating rules isnt the way to do it.
Don't want new players harassed in the first month? Excellent, code it in so that new players can't be agressed in the first 30 days. New player protection is forfeit when entering low sec, or attacking another player.
Do it right CCP. Stated new player rules are a half assed way to improve the new player experience. |
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
1731
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 18:27:00 -
[46] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:Rules that pertain to normal in game mechanic use need to be coded. If you're trying to improve the new player experience than do it right and code in the rules to help new players. Stating rules isnt the way to do it.
Don't want new players harassed in the first month? Excellent, code it in so that new players can't be agressed in the first 30 days. New player protection is forfeit when entering low sec, or attacking another player.
Do it right CCP. Stated new player rules are a half assed way to improve the new player experience.
That's kind of funny coming from a member of the corp that would be the first to exploit what you just proposed.
Mr Epeen
There is no excuse beyond fatalistic self-indulgence and sheer laziness for doing nothing --á Iain Banks |
Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
236
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 18:32:00 -
[47] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote:Rules that pertain to normal in game mechanic use need to be coded. If you're trying to improve the new player experience than do it right and code in the rules to help new players. Stating rules isnt the way to do it.
Don't want new players harassed in the first month? Excellent, code it in so that new players can't be agressed in the first 30 days. New player protection is forfeit when entering low sec, or attacking another player.
Do it right CCP. Stated new player rules are a half assed way to improve the new player experience. That's kind of funny coming from a member of the corp that would be the first to exploit what you just proposed. Mr Epeen By making alts to sit in high sec and can't do anything productive for the rest of the corp?
How about reading what I wrote instead of staring, transfixed at my corp name, while your pimply ass bounces up and down in its chair thinking it came up with something witty. |
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
1731
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 18:37:00 -
[48] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:Mr Epeen wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote:Rules that pertain to normal in game mechanic use need to be coded. If you're trying to improve the new player experience than do it right and code in the rules to help new players. Stating rules isnt the way to do it.
Don't want new players harassed in the first month? Excellent, code it in so that new players can't be agressed in the first 30 days. New player protection is forfeit when entering low sec, or attacking another player.
Do it right CCP. Stated new player rules are a half assed way to improve the new player experience. That's kind of funny coming from a member of the corp that would be the first to exploit what you just proposed. Mr Epeen By making alts to sit in high sec and can't do anything productive for the rest of the corp? How about reading what I wrote instead of staring, transfixed at my corp name, while your pimply ass bounces up and down in its chair thinking it came up with something witty.
Dude, you are even more ******** than most of SA if you can't immediately see six ways to use this to your advantage. But you are not there to think, are you? Just do what you are told.
Mr Epeen
There is no excuse beyond fatalistic self-indulgence and sheer laziness for doing nothing --á Iain Banks |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9264
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 18:42:00 -
[49] - Quote
Malphilos wrote:As previously noted, rules don't protect anyone GǪaside from making sure that people don't do silly things without reason because GǣsillyGǥ isn't worth a ban. They most certainly provide protection.
Quote:What you're arguing for will only serve to provide a "defense" for folks who want to screw with people they're pretty sure they shouldn't. No. Because if they did, they'd be tossed out on their ears and everyone would know it. The difference is that right now, they can appeal to ignorance as a defence. What we're arguing for would remove that. There would no longer be a GÇ£pretty sureGÇ¥. There would be absolutely no question whatsoever.
Quote:You can already take out the old players. Go do it. There's no rule that says you can't. Actually, there is: the newbie protection rules, because there is no way for me to differentiate the two.
So the question remains: why are you opposed to absolute and crystal clear protection for newbies? Why are you against the removal of exploits used by old players to get protection they do not deserve? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
236
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 18:42:00 -
[50] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote:Mr Epeen wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote:Rules that pertain to normal in game mechanic use need to be coded. If you're trying to improve the new player experience than do it right and code in the rules to help new players. Stating rules isnt the way to do it.
Don't want new players harassed in the first month? Excellent, code it in so that new players can't be agressed in the first 30 days. New player protection is forfeit when entering low sec, or attacking another player.
Do it right CCP. Stated new player rules are a half assed way to improve the new player experience. That's kind of funny coming from a member of the corp that would be the first to exploit what you just proposed. Mr Epeen By making alts to sit in high sec and can't do anything productive for the rest of the corp? How about reading what I wrote instead of staring, transfixed at my corp name, while your pimply ass bounces up and down in its chair thinking it came up with something witty. Dude, you are even more ******** than most of SA if you can't immediately see six ways to use this to your advantage. But you are not there to think, are you? Just do what you are told. Mr Epeen Envy really isn't a good trait.
Stare at my corp name a little more.
|
|
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
1731
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 18:52:00 -
[51] - Quote
Tippia wrote: So the question remains: why are you opposed to absolute and crystal clear protection for newbies?
Who cares.
It's CCP that is opposed to easily exploitable written rules. I'm sure they've noted your opinion (since you've been braying it over and over) and duly ignored it as it deserves.
Mr Epeen
There is no excuse beyond fatalistic self-indulgence and sheer laziness for doing nothing --á Iain Banks |
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
1731
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 19:01:00 -
[52] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote: Envy really isn't a good trait.
Stare at my corp name a little more.
Put X amount of estimated isk worth of goods in a ship and new player protection goes away. Enter null or low sec and new player protection goes away. Leave the npc corp within the first 30 days and protection gone. Attack another player and protection gone. Steal from a player and protection gone.
Stop being a willing idiot and use the grey matter between your ears.
Would you like to edit a few more times before I respond?
Mr Epeen
There is no excuse beyond fatalistic self-indulgence and sheer laziness for doing nothing --á Iain Banks |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9264
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 19:03:00 -
[53] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:Who cares. I do, since I'd like to see newbies protected and I don't understand why anyone would be so adamantly against rules that offered such protection.
Quote:It's CCP that is opposed to easily exploitable written rules. So why do they create them, rather than institute rules that leaves zero wiggle-room for would-be exploiters and pretty much complete freedom for the GMs? And why do so many people want to see those easily exploitable rules stick around rather than have them replaced by better ones? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
145
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 19:09:00 -
[54] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Malphilos wrote:As previously noted, rules don't protect anyone GǪaside from making sure that people don't do silly things without reason because GǣsillyGǥ isn't worth a ban. They most certainly provide protection.
Certainly no more, and effectively less, than CONCORD. They protect nothing.They provide for the sanction of folks who break them, and that's all.
Tippia wrote:Quote:What you're arguing for will only serve to provide a "defense" for folks who want to screw with people they're pretty sure they shouldn't. No. Because if they did, they'd be tossed out on their ears and everyone would know it.
We're there already, ignorance is no defense. You're arguing for nothing again.
Except, it would appear, for protection for yourself:
Tippia wrote:... there is no way for me to differentiate the two.
Based on that, it would seem that the more nebulous the rules, the more protective they are.
It becomes even more apparent that what you're looking for is cover for yourself.
Advice: Don't screw with noobs. Don't screw with people you're unsure about. Your judgement appears inadequate. |
Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
145
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 19:13:00 -
[55] - Quote
Tippia wrote:So why do they create them, rather than institute rules that leaves zero wiggle-room for would-be exploiters and pretty much complete freedom for the GMs?
We're there already.
What, you think you could successfully argue that they weren't sufficiently specific in their rules, and the GM will be forced to say, "Curses! Foiled again by sophistic hairsplitting!"?
Give it a shot, let us know.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9264
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 19:13:00 -
[56] - Quote
Malphilos wrote:Certainly no more, and effectively less, than CONCORD. CONCORD does't ban you from the game and has no other real-world consequences.
Quote:We're there already, ignorance is no defense. Sure it is. Argue that there was no way for you to know that the guy was a newbie and bob's your uncle.
Quote:Based on that, it would seem that the more nebulous the rules, the more protective they are. No. The more nebulous the rules, the more wiggle-room there is to argue that you acted on good faith.
Quote:Advice: Don't screw with noobs. Just one problem: there is no way of telling who's a newbie, which means the rules create exploits for older players to hide behind and doesn't offer good protection for the newbies.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Cutter Isaacson
Quantum Reality R n D GREATER ITAMO MAFIA
875
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 19:19:00 -
[57] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Mr Epeen wrote:Who cares. I do, since I'd like to see newbies protected and I don't understand why anyone would be so adamantly against rules that offered such protection. Quote:It's CCP that is opposed to easily exploitable written rules. So why do they create them, rather than institute rules that leaves zero wiggle-room for would-be exploiters and pretty much complete freedom for the GMs? And why do so many people want to see those easily exploitable rules stick around rather than have them replaced by better ones?
Take some time off, sit down, and think of every single scenario that has ever, does or might ever occur involving rookies. Then define and codify a set of rules that cannot possibly be bent, twisted, perverted or outright broken by anyone, ever. Then double and triple check them.
When you can come back with an absolute foolproof set of rules designed to protect and define a rookie then people will take you seriously. After all, you seem to think its an easy task, so give it a go. I'll see you in about a decade.
Until then can this subject please die the death it so richly deserves? My views are my own, not those of my Corp. or my Alliance. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9264
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 19:22:00 -
[58] - Quote
Cutter Isaacson wrote:Take some time off, sit down, and think of every single scenario that has ever, does or might ever occur involving rookies. Then define and codify a set of rules that cannot possibly be bent, twisted, perverted or outright broken by anyone, ever. Then double and triple check them. Already done and presented. For some reason, no-one seems to be able to poke a whole in it and instead just dig their heels in and demand that the rules remain unspoken so as to not give crystal clear rules about who's being protected and so that exploits for old players remainGǪ
GǪI wonder why. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks The Marmite Collective
2279
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 19:24:00 -
[59] - Quote
I still think CCP needs to create a rookie tag that gets turned off when character hit one of a number of threshold events (account age, joining a player corp, whatever is necessary to prevent abuse). This will let us know definitively who is off limits and protect players while they learn basic game mechanics. The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9264
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 19:32:00 -
[60] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:I still think CCP needs to create a rookie tag that gets turned off when character hit one of a number of threshold events (account age, joining a player corp, whatever is necessary to prevent abuse). This will let us know definitively who is off limits and protect players while they learn basic game mechanics. That could work, but the main problem with that is that the thresholds would have to be so numerous and cover so many instances that it would probably be easier to just go for the original geographic limitation and be done with it. Also, it rather hinges on being able to positively identify the player behind the account (because the character stats are almost completely useless for any such flags), which is tricky to say the best.
Yes, it would be a game-mechanical way of doing it, but game mechanics are hugely vulnerable to bugs and exploits and general player clevernessGǪ Simplicity tends to provide better robustness in these matters. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |