CSM Campaigns

 
 

Claevyan: CSM 12 Candidate Announcement

Author
Rejection Of Sovereignty
#1 - 2017-02-09 20:19:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Claevyan
Slogan: No Sov. No agenda. No promises.

Overall goal: To see the growth of the eve community and the eve universe as a whole.

Overall strategy: To engage with players from the far corners of eve in order to promote meaningful and engaging content for all aspects of the player community.

Summary:
I hold no sovereignty. I have no political agenda. I can make no promises as to what will happen when I am on the CSM.
I want to be there to represent the community of EVE in all aspects of game play. This is an amazing game with some amazing people and I know we all want to see it grow and strengthen in the months and years to come.
I don't have a platform or a set of objectives that must be fulfilled. I don't have any illusions as to my ability to force CCP to do anything it hasn't decided to do.
What I can offer, all any candidate can really offer, is an open ear and a channel through which CCP can hear you, know you, and trust you, the community.

I created a contact form \ survey to make it easy to submit questions, concerns, or ideas. I would love to hear from you!
Here's the google document: Contact Form

Vote for Claevyan, CSM 13: Low Class Wormholes, Alliance Bookmarks WHEN?!, and CCPlz candidate.

Rejection Of Sovereignty
#2 - 2017-02-09 20:25:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Claevyan
CSM Campaign Interview with Matterall on Talking in Stations.: Youtube Link.



Message to the Gamer:

My name is Justin.
We've probably never met, but that won't stop me from saying hello. :)

I began playing eve in December of 2007. From 2008 to December 2009, I derped around as a super bad noob before joining a wonderful group of EUTZ guys that stayed up WAY too late and taught me a lot. We began participating in the sov wars out in Provi Bloc as a member of the now dead Slyph alliance.

After Sylph died my friends created an alternate group for Mercenary work and Hi-Sec war deccing contracts. We received several lucrative contracts from both friends and enemies of our former alliance. We also roamed through low sec and null looking for brawls and occasionally ran hi-sec PVE missions with new bros.
We were part of the initial wave of wormhole divers during their inception, though I was unable to accomplish much as I began attending college in the fall of 2009.

I returned to eve full time in 2013 and picked back up with some of my old friends from Slyph, now part of the Kill It With Fire alliance and operating out of C5-C5 space.
I joined PROZC and got back into the swing of PvP roaming with our allied corporations Ekchuah and HardKnocks.
From 2013 to now I have experiencing various aspects of eve's PvP and PvE environment, from BLOPS drops to Cap Warfare to the M-O Keepstar battle.

I have participated in NPSI fleets with Bombers Bar and Specter Fleet. I have gone on week long solo camping trips in the depths of J-Space. And I have learned to once again despise the long grind of L4+ mission running.

I have played the station trading games, running the markets and looking for the low buys and hi sells. I have also gone through HQ and Vanguard Incursion fleets, and seen the amazing fluidity of a well ordered and well commanded fleet.
I love eve and its many fascinating areas of play. There are boundless ways we can improve upon and change this game for the better, or for worse. I would like to represent the interests of the community as it grows, and encourage changes that will improve upon the growth and strength of the player base.

I am willing to listen to and hear what you have to say regarding anything that is on your mind when it comes to eve. Feel free to message me any time in game or out of it.
You can reach me at Claevyan1@gmail.com or message Claevyan in game.

You can also fill out this awesome survey thing that google helped me make! (Trolls encouraged!)

Vote for Claevyan, CSM 13: Low Class Wormholes, Alliance Bookmarks WHEN?!, and CCPlz candidate.

Rejection Of Sovereignty
#3 - 2017-02-10 21:20:07 UTC
Claevyan is an AWOXing dirty sob and I regret ever letting him get his filthy hands on my corp wallet.

I fully endorse his message of lunacy.

VOTE CLAEVYAN

Lost in space

Rejection Of Sovereignty
#4 - 2017-02-13 14:34:50 UTC
Thanks for the support there Max. Means a lot, coming from my own CEO that i totally haven't gotten killed or anything.

Vote for Claevyan, CSM 13: Low Class Wormholes, Alliance Bookmarks WHEN?!, and CCPlz candidate.

Rejection Of Sovereignty
#5 - 2017-02-28 14:23:20 UTC
added youtube link for Matterall interview.

Vote for Claevyan, CSM 13: Low Class Wormholes, Alliance Bookmarks WHEN?!, and CCPlz candidate.

Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2017-03-02 15:28:33 UTC
Hello,

My question - what is your viewpoint regarding Faction standings and as a CSM member, what changes would you propose to CCP pertaining to game mechanics for Faction standings ?

Good luck to you in the upcoming CSM election.


DMC
Rejection Of Sovereignty
#7 - 2017-03-02 16:13:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Claevyan
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Hello,

My question - what is your viewpoint regarding Faction standings and as a CSM member, what changes would you propose to CCP pertaining to game mechanics for Faction standings ?

Good luck to you in the upcoming CSM election.


DMC



Thank you for the Question.

I see that your query is important to you, and that you have been asking a lot of the CSM candidates for their thoughts. To answer honestly, I have not had to deal with faction standings for a long time. While i did participate in Caldari Faction Warfare my time was brief and the experience did not harm my standings too badly with other factions.

Many games have a faction system and allow for players to partake in a type of 'regional politics' similar to what we see in eve, though the eve system is far more branched, detailed, and complicated to understand minutely.

Let's consider the problem:
The biggest issue, really, is educating the new player that their standings can and will have long term implications should they pursue PVE missions or Faction warfare for a long enough time. If you begin the game doing Caldari navy missions, and then move to Caldari Faction Warfare and after 3 months of play finally get the nerve to venture to other areas of space, you will find that you've screwed yourself over without realizing it and that it may take another 1 or 2 months before you can safely fly to Dodixie, depending on your time commitment to EvE.

We could implement a buy-back system using tags or other items, but then EvE factions effectively become meaningless to everyone but the hard core Role Player. It's no longer a decision of "what am I willing to work for?" but of "How much Isk do I need?"
I could definitely see adding a buy back or donation system to certain smaller factions, but only as a "foot in the door" measure to the bigger guys.

Making faction standings easier to acquire and manipulate will also have market effects that need to be considered. Specific ships and modules are only available based on faction standings. The easier it is to acquire those standings, the less rare the items, and the more flooded the market, upsetting balances and leading to recessions in certain sectors.

Here's my two thoughts on how to make this better for the new player as a whole, without terribly upsetting market values and balances.

We could setup an in game system that allows you to check how an action will affect your standings with a faction, and/or a UI change that makes it a lot easier to see recent changes to your faction standings at a glance.

We can add warnings and dialogue to the NPE as well as to other actions (about to join FW, making achoice between two gates in a mission involving separate factions, etc) that says something about how you can screw your faction standings hard core for dropping off that cargo or blapping amarr navy ships in a caldari mission.

TL;DR - Don't add a buy back system unless its only for the smaller subfactions, add more warnings to the NPE and elsewhere in game and maybe a UI change that can make changes to your standings easier to understand and track.

Vote for Claevyan, CSM 13: Low Class Wormholes, Alliance Bookmarks WHEN?!, and CCPlz candidate.

Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2017-03-02 17:17:28 UTC  |  Edited by: DeMichael Crimson
Thanks for the reply.

Yes, it's an important aspect of the game, not only to me but to a lot of other players as well. I must say I like and agree 100% with what you posted, CCP definitely needs to incorporate more awareness to Faction standings in-game.

This game was based on having a balance in 'Risk vs Reward' and 'Actions vs Consequences' which makes this game great. Currently the only way to repair negative Faction standings is to grind missions. It takes time for players to ruin Faction standings and it should take some time to repair those standings. In the past Characters use to be accountable for their actions in-game, now most everything has been dumbed down and turned into easy mode for the instant gratification crowd. That's something I don't want to see happen to Faction standings.

Currently the in-game aspects of Faction standings :
Positive Faction standings are the only way to access Cosmos Agents (one time access).
Positive Faction and Corporation standings are needed to access Research Agents.
All other Agents only require minimal amount of Faction standing for access (-2.00 or higher standing).
High Faction standings reduce Market Broker fees and Reprocessing fees in NPC stations.
At -5.00 or lower Faction standing, Empire NPC's will attack when in their space.

I think CCP made a big mistake when they removed the need to have Faction standings to anchor POS in high sec space. I'd like to see more content pertaining to Faction standings be added to the game but at this time my inquiry is based more on the effects of negative Faction standings.

I created and shared the 'Faction Standing Repair Plan' with the playerbase back in 2010. In my opinion players need more options available to repair negative Faction standings then what I've listed in 'The Plan'. Most of those Event Agents can only be accessed once in the characters life. A lot of players in-game don't even read the forums so they don't know that guide is available. In fact repairing negative Faction standings is a big task for experienced players. New players who haven't even learned the game yet can easily mess up their Faction standings right from the start without even knowing it, resulting in no access to half of Empire space.

These are some options I think would help players in-game.

Faction standing repair process be implemented in-game to be very intuitive, not obscure (tutorial perhaps).
Changes to Empire Faction standings notify players with on screen pop up message (option to deactivate).
Actions that would cause negative Empire Faction standing trigger on screen pop up warning (option to deactivate).
All Anti-Empire mission briefings have a warning to inform players those missions will incur negative Faction standings.
Implement Tags for Standings in-game based on similar game mechanics as Tags for Security.
Add NPC Agents to in-game Agent Finder for Faction standing repair (similar to proposal in my forum signature).

Anyway, thanks again for the reply and good luck in the upcoming election.



DMC
Rejection Of Sovereignty
#9 - 2017-03-04 00:13:27 UTC
If I vote for you, will you promise me alliance book marks?

Lost in space

Rejection Of Sovereignty
#10 - 2017-03-05 10:24:24 UTC
max ericshaun wrote:
If I vote for you, will you promise me alliance book marks?



MAX, stop trolling my campaign thread. No i will not promise that they will happen, yes I will bug every CCP dev I meet about it, just to get the point across that alliances in wormhole space will definitely approve of that QoL change.

Vote for Claevyan, CSM 13: Low Class Wormholes, Alliance Bookmarks WHEN?!, and CCPlz candidate.

Rejection Of Sovereignty
#11 - 2017-03-06 14:16:20 UTC
EVE NT interview questions posted!
https://eve-nt.uk/article/2017-03-05-104441-CSM12-Candidate-Claevyan/

Vote for Claevyan, CSM 13: Low Class Wormholes, Alliance Bookmarks WHEN?!, and CCPlz candidate.

Rejection Of Sovereignty
#12 - 2017-03-07 19:27:10 UTC
More Director Level Slack Leaks (tm)

Quote:

[14:23] claevyan:

The year of hundred seventeen, the search had just begun
The Drifters had the newest ships, that had the biggest guns
The Drifters were the weirdest **** that ever sailed the black
and they fired off a Doomsday when taking too much flak

Out of the dark eternal night flew the PROZC fleet, the 1337!
And ev'ry PROZC pilot, prepared to overheat
They had to blap the Drifter, the terror of the black
that fired off a Doomsday when taking too much flak

We'll find that Drifter battleship that's makin' such a fuss
We gotta blap the Drifter, New Eden depends on us
Leave yer props a-runnin' boys and spin those guns around
When we find the Drifter we gotta cut her down

The 1337! found the Drifter and on that fatal day
The Drifter started firin' 200 clicks away
"We gotta blap the Drifter" was the battle sound
But when the smoke had cleared away, the mighty 1337! went down

For six long days and weary nights we stewed about our fate
Ericshaun told the people "Put ev'ry ship in space,
'Cause somewhere in the blackness I know she's gotta be
We gotta sink the Drifter and send the loot to me"

We'll find that Drifter battleship that's makin' such a fuss
We gotta blap the Drifter, New Eden depends on us
Leave yer props a-runnin' boys and spin those guns around
When we find the Drifter we gotta cut her down

The fleet was formed the seventh day at zero on the sun
Ten hours away from downtime the drifter made its run
The admiral of the PROZC fleet said "Turn those bows around
We found that Drifter battleship and we're gonna cut her down"

The PROZC guns were aimed and the reps were comin' fast
The first round hit the Drifter, we knew she couldn't last
That mighty Drifter battleship is just a looted wreck
"Blap the Drifter" was the battle cry that made us risk our necks

We found that Drifter battleship was makin' such a fuss
We had to blap the Drifter 'cause New Eden depends on us
We left our props a-runnin' and we spun those guns around
Yeah, we found the mighty Drifter and then we cut her down
#13 - 2017-03-08 06:36:11 UTC
07 Candidate!

First, thank you for your time and effort (both present and future) in representing the capsuleers of New Eden! They’re much appreciated.

I’m preparing to cast my vote in the CSM12 elections. After reading the information you submitted, though, I still have a question.

By way of background, I started in Eve as a hauler, moving freight in T1 industrials and gradually working my way up in both ships and cargo. However, I repeatedly found my progress impeded by gankers who would destroy my ship and steal my cargo. In low- and null-sec space, that’s to be expected. You place your bet and take your chances. In high-sec space, however, this is very frustrating. Why have high-sec space at all then? This frustration drove me into anti-ganking, and I’ve been a proud member of Thomas en Chasteaux's High-Sec Militia for several months now.

So, my question. Where do you stand on high-sec ganking? I’ll concede that ganking is a legitimate style of game play, as CCP has ruled. But I also feel that it should be difficult and dangerous (for the ganker) in the 30% of New Eden designated as high-sec space. In particular, I’d like to see CCP tweak the game mechanics so that the criminal flag generated by looting a ganked freighter in high-sec space follows all players who handle that loot, and otherwise make looting more realistic. (Thomas en Chasteaux's ideas, not mine.)

As a member of the CSM, would you present such an idea to CCP? Would you push for its adoption? What other game changes might you consider to make high-sec ganking more difficult and less profitable?

Regards,
Cochise Chiricahua.
Rejection Of Sovereignty
#14 - 2017-03-08 16:58:04 UTC
Cochise Chiricahua wrote:
07 Candidate!

First, thank you for your time and effort (both present and future) in representing the capsuleers of New Eden! They’re much appreciated.

I’m preparing to cast my vote in the CSM12 elections. After reading the information you submitted, though, I still have a question.

By way of background, I started in Eve as a hauler, moving freight in T1 industrials and gradually working my way up in both ships and cargo. However, I repeatedly found my progress impeded by gankers who would destroy my ship and steal my cargo. In low- and null-sec space, that’s to be expected. You place your bet and take your chances. In high-sec space, however, this is very frustrating. Why have high-sec space at all then? This frustration drove me into anti-ganking, and I’ve been a proud member of Thomas en Chasteaux's High-Sec Militia for several months now.

So, my question. Where do you stand on high-sec ganking? I’ll concede that ganking is a legitimate style of game play, as CCP has ruled. But I also feel that it should be difficult and dangerous (for the ganker) in the 30% of New Eden designated as high-sec space. In particular, I’d like to see CCP tweak the game mechanics so that the criminal flag generated by looting a ganked freighter in high-sec space follows all players who handle that loot, and otherwise make looting more realistic. (Thomas en Chasteaux's ideas, not mine.)

As a member of the CSM, would you present such an idea to CCP? Would you push for its adoption? What other game changes might you consider to make high-sec ganking more difficult and less profitable?

Regards,
Cochise Chiricahua.



Good day Cochise!

I understand where you're coming from and totally get the frustration level of hi-sec ganking. From a game play perspective, CCP wants to see no where in EvE as being 100% safe, just a scaled level of risk. Ganking is an activity that pits the risk vs reward mechanic against a players initiative and planning and I really think it needs to stay in the game.
As you even state, there are player driven Anti-Gank squads up and running to try and counter this game play which adds even more complexity to the world of Eve.

To speak plainly, my stance is that ganking is in an "OK" spot right now with a few minor areas that can and probably should be adjusted.

Let me explain:
For one, there is still a lot to be said for disrupting or delaying Concord response time. Some groups will use tactics that are intended to disrupt or stop Concord from responding to a gank attempt in a timely manner and this is something I would like to see addressed with CCP.

I also am willing to present the ideas you mentioned to the CSM and CCP and have a more robust discussion regarding this topic to see if there are any areas of the game mechanics that are being abused or that can be tweaked to allow for a better game play experience.

-Claevyan

Vote for Claevyan, CSM 13: Low Class Wormholes, Alliance Bookmarks WHEN?!, and CCPlz candidate.

Rejection Of Sovereignty
#15 - 2017-05-27 12:57:05 UTC
CSM 13 will happen!

Lost in space

Forum Jump