| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 12 post(s) |
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 GÇö 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 GÇ£driving down the road at legal speedGÇ¥ 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.
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?
|
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 GÇ£up to the lineGÇ¥ thatGÇÖs an indicator THEY ARENGÇÖT DOING ANYTHING WRONG. By definition! If there is no rule, how does a GM know how to decide? If there is no line, youGÇÖre guaranteeing that your enforcement policies will be necessarily arbitrary, as any particular case may be ruled GÇÿbadGÇÖ by one GM and not another. YouGÇÖre 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 weGÇÖre 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 donGÇÖt understand; not outright ganking them; not screwing with their heads. Also in this thread-- GÇ£The rule is GÇÿdo not mess with rookies,GÇÖ and if you are in doubt the answer is ALWAYS GÇÿdo not do it'.GÇ¥ YouGÇÖve gone a step further with GÇ£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.GÇ¥
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 heGÇÖs 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 GÇ£Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter HereGÇ¥ style warning. Outside of the rookie system, youGÇÖre 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 youGÇÖre ready to help Sister Alitura save the universe, youGÇÖre 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. GǪexcept that you have to be able to do so, otherwise it would create such a ridiculously huge and abusable loophole to hide stuff behind.
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
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. GǪexcept 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. GǪexcept 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. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |