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) |
Tah'ris Khlador
Space Ghosts. Break-A-Wish Foundation
178
|
Posted - 2012.08.26 20:08:00 -
[1] - Quote
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. |
James 315
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
2506
|
Posted - 2012.08.26 20:12:00 -
[2] - Quote
Why would you want to pick on new players anyway?
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ MinerBumping.com -½-½-½-½-½-½-½-½-½-½The daily saga of one man's quest to bring civilization to highsec by bumping miners out of range. |
Suddenly Forums ForumKings
Republic University Minmatar Republic
274
|
Posted - 2012.08.26 20:12:00 -
[3] - Quote
The SOE epic arc is protected?
Simple question: why?
If you're going to protect that arc you should also protect Angel Sound (the Angel Cartel epic arc). |
Tah'ris Khlador
Space Ghosts. Break-A-Wish Foundation
178
|
Posted - 2012.08.26 20:15:00 -
[4] - Quote
James 315 wrote:Why would you want to pick on new players anyway?
I don't pick on the ones in space under 1 month old, but I get convo'd about this stuff now since the last thread lol. I'm in support of rules being enforced when they're known, not bans for unknown rules. |
Tah'ris Khlador
Space Ghosts. Break-A-Wish Foundation
178
|
Posted - 2012.08.26 20:16:00 -
[5] - Quote
Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:The SOE epic arc is protected?
Simple question: why?
If you're going to protect that arc you should also protect Angel Sound (the Angel Cartel epic arc).
From my understanding, it's only for rookie players 1 month old or younger, which is fine. Everyone else is still free game. |
Mallak Azaria
581
|
Posted - 2012.08.26 20:16:00 -
[6] - Quote
Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:The SOE epic arc is protected?
Simple question: why?
If you're going to protect that arc you should also protect Angel Sound (the Angel Cartel epic arc).
New Player Experience.
CCP got tired of people that relentlessly kill new players, however this only applies in starter & SoE epic arc systems. They're still fair game everywhere else. Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
1721
|
Posted - 2012.08.26 20:20:00 -
[7] - Quote
I see nothing wrong with a game company doing it's best to retain players past their trial period, so I too am in favor of this.
As to whether they should scream this from the rooftops, I think not. I kind of like the divine justice of seeing these asshats that grief noobs getting to see the bottom of CCP's big frozen boot.
Mr Epeen There is no excuse beyond fatalistic self-indulgence and sheer laziness for doing nothing --á Iain Banks |
Virgil Travis
Non Constructive Self Management Unified Church of the Unobligated
665
|
Posted - 2012.08.26 21:27:00 -
[8] - Quote
Some people need to learn the hard way. I've been in Arnon a few times where the SOE epic arc begins and ends, there are quite a few older players hanging around in their hoping to score kills from new players. If that's how they want to play they should learn to deal with the consequences.
Some seem to feel that Arnon is their little pond and they're a big shark in it. If they're whining about being banned, tough crap, deal with it. Unified Church of the Unobligated - madness in the method Mamma didn't raise no victims. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4456
|
Posted - 2012.08.26 21:41:00 -
[9] - Quote
"i need to pad my killboard with two week old players in t1 frigates that loot my cans" "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Jonah Gravenstein
772
|
Posted - 2012.08.26 22:35:00 -
[10] - Quote
Andski wrote:"i need to pad my killboard with two week old players in t1 frigates that loot my cans"
Oh hi, my name is Socratic 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. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9250
|
Posted - 2012.08.26 22:51:00 -
[11] - Quote
Tah'ris Khlador wrote: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. Unfortunately, CCP feel that if they tell people the rules, people will have an easier time not breaking them, which would somehow be a bad thingGǪ
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?
|
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
1727
|
Posted - 2012.08.26 23:06:00 -
[12] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Tah'ris Khlador wrote: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. Unfortunately, CCP feel that if they tell people the rules, people will have an easier time not breaking them, which would somehow be a bad thingGǪ I think that what CCP has actually said, over and over, is that they don't give specifics because it makes it easier for these losers to find the loopholes.
CCP has stated to leave newbies alone. That should be good enough for anyone not to argue with. Unless you are sitting on a griefer alt. Then by all means have fun niggling over the details.
Mr Epeen There is no excuse beyond fatalistic self-indulgence and sheer laziness for doing nothing --á Iain Banks |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9250
|
Posted - 2012.08.26 23:14:00 -
[13] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:I think that what CCP has actually said, over and over, is that they don't give specifics because it makes it easier for these losers to find the loopholes. GǪand no matter how often they say it, it's an idiotic argument that is at complete cross-purpose to what they want to achieve. 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. So people get away with more. It's particularly idiotic when they make a very clear-cut rule and then decide to fudge certain parts of it for no good reason at all when those parts are really no different than the parts they do explain clearly.
Quote:CCP has stated to leave newbies alone. GǪand that would be fine and all if they provided a method to determine what counts as a newbie, which they're also unwilling to do. No-one is arguing with the rule. They just want to know whether or not they're breaking it. 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?
|
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
1727
|
Posted - 2012.08.26 23:21:00 -
[14] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Mr Epeen wrote:I think that what CCP has actually said, over and over, is that they don't give specifics because it makes it easier for these losers to find the loopholes. GǪand no matter how often they say it, it's an idiotic argument that is at complete cross-purpose to what they want to achieve. 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. So people get away with more. It's particularly idiotic when they make a very clear-cut rule and then decide to fudge certain parts of it for no good reason at all when those parts are really no different than the parts they do explain clearly. Quote:CCP has stated to leave newbies alone. GǪand that would be fine and all if they provided a method to determine what counts as a newbie, which they're also unwilling to do. No-one is arguing with the rule. They just want to know whether or not they're breaking it. And she starts niggling over the details.
Mr Epeen There is no excuse beyond fatalistic self-indulgence and sheer laziness for doing nothing --á Iain Banks |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9250
|
Posted - 2012.08.26 23:22:00 -
[15] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:And she starts niggling over the details. GǪsuch as? 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?
|
Pipa Porto
837
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 01:11:00 -
[16] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote: And she starts niggling over the details. Mr Epeen
Like the fact that CCP is enforcing things that aren't a rule. Those systems not listed on the "Rookie Systems" page are very clearly not "Rookie Systems," thus are clearly not subject to "Rookie System" restrictions. Oh wait... that's not a small and petty detail.
If you want to say that they are "Rookie Systems" by virtue of being frequented by rookies, then so is Jita.
There is an easy way to resolve the issue. Re-write the rule so that it is clear and enforceable. "Do not mess* with anybody in a Rookie System. These are the Rookie Systems [List]."
If CCP wants to add rookie systems, they can do that (it's a stupid idea, but v0v). But adding them secretly is lunacy.
*As discussed in the last thread about this, nobody has a problem with the prohibited actions being vague, just with the protected class being vague. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
1727
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 01:20:00 -
[17] - Quote
As I recall, the two of you already tried white-knighting the griefers over 33 pages.
I guess you are going to take another shot at it, are you?
Mr Epeen There is no excuse beyond fatalistic self-indulgence and sheer laziness for doing nothing --á Iain Banks |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9252
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 01:25:00 -
[18] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:As I recall, the two of you already tried white-knighting the griefers over 33 pages. You recall incorrectly. 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?
|
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
1728
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 01:35:00 -
[19] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Mr Epeen wrote:As I recall, the two of you already tried white-knighting the griefers over 33 pages. You recall incorrectly.
Oh, sorry.
Did I get the page count wrong?
Mr Epeen There is no excuse beyond fatalistic self-indulgence and sheer laziness for doing nothing --á Iain Banks |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9252
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 01:38:00 -
[20] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:Oh, sorry.
Did I get the page count wrong? Probably that too. 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?
|
|
Pipa Porto
837
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 02:24:00 -
[21] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Mr Epeen wrote:As I recall, the two of you already tried white-knighting the griefers over 33 pages. You recall incorrectly.
You forget, wanting more stringent rules designed to actually protect new players is "white-knighting the griefers." EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Tiberius Sunstealer
Phantom Soulreavers Axiom Solaris
138
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 02:36:00 -
[22] - Quote
I don't agree with protecting new playets but why not give new players (< 1 month old) an icon that identifies them as a new player if we are going to punish people for attacking them? Then players know who not to hit (if CCP explicitly state it). |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9253
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 03:04:00 -
[23] - Quote
Tiberius Sunstealer wrote:I don't agree with protecting new playets but why not give new players (< 1 month old) an icon that identifies them as a new player if we are going to punish people for attacking them? Then players know who not to hit (if CCP explicitly state it). It's the classic problem of identifying an individual player.
In essence, it can't be done because unless they start asking for birth certificates and biometric IDs, there's no way of telling who's behind an account. There could be some correlation done GÇö multiple accounts on the same credit card, for instance GÇö but even then, there would be false positives and false negatives. There's also the even more intricate question of whether they'd actually be allowed to identify individuals like that, but my internet-lawyer-fu is too weak to delve into that particular point.
It's also a matter of exploitability: any such system will be exploited and then the question will be raised about what, where, and when the rules no longer apply and contrary to hope and good intention, common sense will not be enough to resolve it.
The solution Pipa and I argued for was to simply not try to define any particular group and protect them GÇö because any such attempt will end up being vague, conflicting, and full of special cases and additional inclusions and exceptions that will be too numerous to count GÇö but rather to make the group so simple and so crystal clear that absolutely no ambiguity was left: everyone is protectedGǪ
GǪbut only in the select set of systems where newbies do their newbie stuff. The abuses and exploits an older player can get out of those systems are no more than he can get out of a single NPC-owned station. This leaves us with a second definition that needs to be made clear, and that's what counts as a newbie system. Again, this can be answered with absolute clarity if one so chooses (and that's where the whole discussion started: because they didn't want to make any such clarification but rather to let arbitrariness and non-enforceability rule the day). That leaves a vast degree of freedom for the GMs to pursue griefers and miscreants because it's still up to their discretion to determine whether any given action or activity counts as breaking the rules, and yet the rule is very clear because there is zero question as to who is covered by the protection. Everyone knows whom not to hit: anyone and everyone they encounter within the protected systems. 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?
|
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
1728
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 03:33:00 -
[24] - Quote
Tippia wrote:
The solution Pipa and I argued for was to simply....
Annoy GM Homonoia with such gems as:
GM Homonoia wrote:Pipa Porto 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.
Yeah, seems like you two are pretty sincere.
Mr Epeen
There is no excuse beyond fatalistic self-indulgence and sheer laziness for doing nothing --á Iain Banks |
Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
142
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 03:51:00 -
[25] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Mr Epeen wrote:I think that what CCP has actually said, over and over, is that they don't give specifics because it makes it easier for these losers to find the loopholes. GǪand no matter how often they say it, it's an idiotic argument that is at complete cross-purpose to what they want to achieve. 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.
1.) I don't think you know what CCP wants to achieve. 2.) I don't think you know what "loophole" means in the context you're trying to use it. |
Pipa Porto
838
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 04:34:00 -
[26] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:Tippia wrote:
The solution Pipa and I argued for was to simply....
Annoy GM Homonoia with such gems as: GM Homonoia wrote:Pipa Porto 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. Yeah, seems like you two are pretty sincere. Mr Epeen
Context. Noun. A thing that is important in discussions.
For instance, that quote was in the middle of a discussion on Sorities paradox. To summarize: Clearly someone mining in a Hulk is not a Rookie. Clearly someone mining in a Rookie ship is. Thus there is a line somewhere between where a boy becomes a man (so to speak). Refusing to make that line clear is counterproductive, assuming the goal is to actually protect rookies from harm.
Simply banning "messing with people" in Rookie systems and monitoring the logs for easily detectable cases* (so you don't have to hope that rookies will report something they are unlikely to know to report) would actually protect rookies effectively.
Since you want to question motives, I'll join in: Why is it that you're so opposed to effective protections for rookies?
*Bonus point. Just doing the first is better than the current situation. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
145
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 13:15:00 -
[27] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote: Since you want to question motives, I'll join in: Why is it that you're so opposed to effective protections for rookies?
Rules, like CONCORD, don't protect anyone. They provide for punishment of the guilty.
What you and Tippia are arguing for isn't protection for rookies, it's protection from sanctions for the guilty.
If you can't tell what a rookie is ( or want to pretend that's the case), screw with people at your own risk. |
Tah'ris Khlador
Space Ghosts. Break-A-Wish Foundation
179
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 14:27:00 -
[28] - Quote
Malphilos wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: Since you want to question motives, I'll join in: Why is it that you're so opposed to effective protections for rookies?
Rules, like CONCORD, don't protect anyone. They provide for punishment of the guilty. What you and Tippia are arguing for isn't protection for rookies, it's protection from sanctions for the guilty. If you can't tell what a rookie is ( or want to pretend that's the case), screw with people at your own risk.
Okay, I'm just going to wait for the day you somehow stumble upon an undeclared rule and you get immediately banned for it without a warning stating that "we actually don't like this behavior."
Again, I'm all for the protection of rookies but when EVE supports nefarious activities and then random situations start occurring where some nefarious activities get you banned and some don't, and there is no way to know prior to said banning that such actions would incur those sanctions why would I keep playing EVE? I've left other MMOs for **** poor moderation of GMs where they arbitrarily banned people because they didn't like people.
The entirety of the SOE epic arc was not a protected mission set for rookie players previously. Now it is being enforced as such, but it is not listed. I don't even care about the definition of rookie, I just care for at least the consistency to state that the SOE Epic Arc is in fact off limits. |
ShipToaster
173
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 14:37:00 -
[29] - Quote
Tah'ris Khlador wrote:Malphilos wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: Since you want to question motives, I'll join in: Why is it that you're so opposed to effective protections for rookies?
Rules, like CONCORD, don't protect anyone. They provide for punishment of the guilty. What you and Tippia are arguing for isn't protection for rookies, it's protection from sanctions for the guilty. If you can't tell what a rookie is ( or want to pretend that's the case), screw with people at your own risk. Okay, I'm just going to wait for the day you somehow stumble upon an undeclared rule and you get immediately banned for it without a warning stating that "we actually don't like this behavior." Again, I'm all for the protection of rookies but when EVE supports nefarious activities and then random situations start occurring where some nefarious activities get you banned and some don't, and there is no way to know prior to said banning that such actions would incur those sanctions why would I keep playing EVE? I've left other MMOs for **** poor moderation of GMs where they arbitrarily banned people because they didn't like people. The entirety of the SOE epic arc was not a protected mission set for rookie players previously. Now it is being enforced as such, but it is not listed. I don't even care about the definition of rookie, I just care for at least the consistency to state that the SOE Epic Arc is in fact off limits.
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?
I think CCP are doing a good job. Their work on the unified inventory was first class. Mining rebalance is spot on. Their plans for the future look superb.
Sorry even my trolling powers balk at such troll nonsense. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9264
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 14:37:00 -
[30] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:Annoy GM Homonoia You recall incorrectly, still.
Malphilos wrote:1.) I don't think you know what CCP wants to achieve. 2.) I don't think you know what "loophole" means in the context you're trying to use it. 1. Yes I do. We've discussed it at length and we've demonstrated that what they say they want to achieve isn't achieved by what they're doing. 2. Yes I do. You're just confused because you think loopholes are something one-sided that only the ebil nasty people create.
Quote: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: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.
So why are you so afraid of getting rid of exploits? Why are you against giving rookies solid and easily enforcible rules to protect them (and yes, rules do protect people if the punishment for breaking those rules are made clear)? Why do you feel that old players should be protected by the newbie rules? 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 |