EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2007-12-30 04:42
  • First Forum Visit: 2016-08-23 14:49
  • Number of Posts: 33
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

Claevyan

Security Status -1.8
  • The Suicide Express Member since
  • Rejection Of Sovereignty Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • Join The Suicide Express Today! in EVE Corporations, Alliances and Organizations Center

    Sooo.... I am running for CSM??

    Anyway, Join us today and help me figure out what the hell I am doing!

    Choo Choo!

  • Citadel timers - is three strictly neccesary? in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Here's a scenario that i see coming down the line when someone finally does decide to knock over someone else's systems and citadels.

    I can anchor N+1 Citadels in system X for as long as I have the isk to buy them, and the time to drop them. When someone comes and RF's the shields on all of my citadels, I can anchor another one... and another one... and keep anchoring more. Instead of TZ tanking, I can just Boredom tank these bastards to death and eventually one of us is going to quit trying. With the isk available to the largest alliances in the game, you can skirmish but you cannot war. Any attempt to remove them from specific regions is now rendered, for all intents and purposes, impossible due to the sheer amount of time it takes to remove just 1 Astrahus from an area.

    Citadel mechanics in Wormhole space seem to make the most sense, 3 timers, 24 hours each timer, no asset safety, and even then it can be cancerous to remove them. Plus its about 10x harder to "Boredom" tank with citadels in a wormhole system as opposed to a single Null sec system due to hole control and mass restrictions in J-Space.

    While i can understand and even agree with CCP on needing a means of making players feel like their assets are relatively safe, the fact that a citadel can be destroyed at all adds a level of risk to using them that i think is a GOOD thing for eve over all. There always needs to be risk.

    But at the moment the sheer volume and ease of proliferation for Citadels, combined with the terribly boring, drawn out, and cancerous experience of removing citadels has actually caused people to feel LESS inclined to go to war, not more so.

    A good balance might be to limit what a single player organization can anchor based on size and economic control of an area. Every corp or alliance gets X amount to start with, and if you have beyond Y member count you get more to a set maximum of (enter value here).

    Yes, it can be exploited via alt groups and alt corps, but there is still a relatively finite number in place even then... as opposed to an UNLIMITED amount for EVERY player in the game.

  • Join The Suicide Express Today! in EVE Corporations, Alliances and Organizations Center

    Welcome to J-Space! Join the War! YARRR!!!

  • Join The Suicide Express Today! in EVE Corporations, Alliances and Organizations Center

    Join Today! Message us in game at our public channel PROZC Public

  • Can we get rid of CSM after the recent PLEX insider trading fiasco? in EVE Communication Center

    All i gotta say here is... VOTE FOR CLAEVYAN, CSM XII

  • The Bloody Gates of Tama [Lyrics again!] in EVE Communication Center

    The Bloody Gates of Tama - rewritten lyrics for the Scottish classic Loch Lomond,
    By Claevyan

    --- The Bloody Gates of Tama ---

    By yon bonnie docks and by yon bonnie gates,
    Where the sun shines bright in Nourvukaiken,
    Where me and my prowler will never dock again
    For the bloody, bloody gates out in Tama.

    Chorus:
    O ye'll take the high route, and I'll take the low route,
    And ye’ll be in Jita before me,
    For me and my prowler will never dock again,
    O’r the bloody, bloody gates out in Tama.

    'Twas there that we parted, in yon bloody camp,
    On the wrong, darned side o' Nourvukaiken,
    Where in bursting hue, the bloom effects we view,
    And me pod popping out in the gloaming.

    Chorus

    The snuffle grunters sing and the cov hunters spring,
    And in Black Rise the Cap ships are waiting.
    But me broken heart it kens, for a hauler once again,
    that the campers may cease off their griefing.

    Chorus

  • Claevyan: CSM 12 Candidate Announcement in Council of Stellar Management

    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

  • Blap The Drifter - [Lyrics] in EVE Communication Center

    Link to original song on youtube: Sink The Bismarck

    Link to original appearance of these lyrics: PROZC Recruitment Thread

    Hope you all enjoyed it!

  • Blap The Drifter - [Lyrics] in EVE Communication Center

    Blap The Drifter - based off the rewritten lyrics of the song "Sink the Bismark"
    By Claevyan

    ---Blap The Drifter---

    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 came 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 blap 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

  • Claevyan: CSM 12 Candidate Announcement in Council of Stellar Management

    EVE NT interview questions posted!
    https://eve-nt.uk/article/2017-03-05-104441-CSM12-Candidate-Claevyan/

  • Claevyan: CSM 12 Candidate Announcement in Council of Stellar Management

    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.

  • Commander Aze for CSMXII, Make Eve Great Again in Council of Stellar Management

    I agree there. Added a concession edit to my response before i saw yours. Lol

  • Commander Aze for CSMXII, Make Eve Great Again in Council of Stellar Management

    commander aze wrote:


    So this has been on of my fears specifically with regards to the npe dumping people off in faction warfare. Faction standings can seriously screw up a players long term game. Its to hard to alter these standings back to a balanced level for experienced players and consodering a new player wont understand the significance of the standinga till its too late and the damage will be done.

    I think like sec statu there should be a buy this and exchange for favorwith a faction allowing people to get back to possitive standingswith the faction they need to.

    Though I'm game to see other approachs and ideas.


    I caution against a full Faction Status buy-back system on the grounds that would cause further problems with other in game systems. We might solve the problem of "Oops! I blapped my standings when I blapped them ships" but we'd devalue the use of faction standings overall.

    It might be better to try and increase the visibility of faction standings and the changes your actions can have as well as increase the in-game awareness of faction standings through warnings and NPE education.

    I wouldn't mind seeing CCP add value to faction standings overall, through reworking the use of standings in some way. It might help to improve life for those who seek a more PvE play style in EvE.

    EDIT: I do conceed that some form of buy back \ bribe system for the minor factions that cross empire borders but are tied to one of the major factions might be a good idea to allow people to get their footing back when accidents happen.

  • Claevyan: CSM 12 Candidate Announcement in Council of Stellar Management

    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.

  • Claevyan: CSM 12 Candidate Announcement in Council of Stellar Management

    added youtube link for Matterall interview.

  • Join The Suicide Express Today! in EVE Corporations, Alliances and Organizations Center

    You got guns? We got targets! pew pew!

    Join today and meme your way into wormhole greatness.

  • [March] Rorqual and Mining changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Tribal Trogdor wrote:
    Andrew Xadi wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    • Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid.
    !



    so if i jam a rorqual, it can't panic, if i catch a rorqual after it killed a belt, it can't panic, why can't you just make it so that you can't panic like 20 min after jumping?


    All they need to do is give it the system as the NSA. Cant use ewar while you have it running. Solves the problem, right?...Right?



    The Industrial Core that Rorquals use makes it 100% immobile but also immune to Ewar for like 300 seconds. so that is a "decent" way to avoid being ECM'd out of target lock. however, if you are a Rorqual pilot and you have not activated your Indy Core... and a tengu uncloaks next to you your first reaction will probably be to try and warp, or to cyno or to lock the tengu up... something other than activating Indy core.

  • [March] Structure, Drone & Fighter improvements from Team Five 0 in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Looks good! Especially like being able to click the repair button now. Hopefully my damaged drones will now be repaired in J-Space without having to fiddle with the tethering repair mechanics. :P

  • Claevyan: CSM 12 Candidate Announcement in Council of Stellar Management

    Thanks for the support there Max. Means a lot, coming from my own CEO that i totally haven't gotten killed or anything.

  • Join The Suicide Express Today! in EVE Corporations, Alliances and Organizations Center

    I might be an idiot for running for CSM, but you know what? PROZC is looking for recruits to try and keep me from causing too much harm. :)

    Join Today! Message us in game at our public channel PROZC Public!

Forum Signature

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