Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Claevyan
The Suicide Express Rejection Of Sovereignty
0
|
Posted - 2017.02.09 20:19:23 -
[1] - Quote
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.
CSM 12: No Sov. No Agenda. No Promises.
|
Claevyan
The Suicide Express Rejection Of Sovereignty
0
|
Posted - 2017.02.09 20:25:19 -
[2] - Quote
I have experience with many parts of the eve universe, but not nearly all of it. Please message me or send a response with any questions, stories, or ideas you might have for eve online.
I want to hear from you!
CSM 12: No Sov. No Agenda. No Promises.
|
max ericshaun
The Suicide Express Rejection Of Sovereignty
120
|
Posted - 2017.02.10 21:20:07 -
[3] - Quote
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
|
Claevyan
The Suicide Express Rejection Of Sovereignty
8
|
Posted - 2017.02.13 14:34:50 -
[4] - Quote
Thanks for the support there Max. Means a lot, coming from my own CEO that i totally haven't gotten killed or anything.
CSM 12: No Sov. No Agenda. No Promises.
|
Claevyan
The Suicide Express Rejection Of Sovereignty
8
|
Posted - 2017.02.28 14:23:20 -
[5] - Quote
added youtube link for Matterall interview.
CSM 12: No Sov. No Agenda. No Promises.
|
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
59671
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 15:28:33 -
[6] - Quote
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
'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
|
Claevyan
The Suicide Express Rejection Of Sovereignty
9
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 16:13:15 -
[7] - Quote
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.
CSM 12: No Sov. No Agenda. No Promises.
|
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
59673
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 17:17:28 -
[8] - Quote
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 with what you posted, CCP definitely needs to incorporate more awareness to Faction standings in-game.
There should also be more content added to help regain Faction standings. I don't like the idea of having Tags for Standings. Just like Tags for Security, I think those are nothing more than a 'Get Out Of Jail Free Card' for actions that should merit some consequences.
Since this game was founded on the premise of having a balance on 'Risk vs Reward' and 'Actions vs Consequences' and it takes time for players to ruin Faction standings, it should also take some time to repair those standings.
I know it's tough on new players who haven't learned the game yet. Anti-Empire missions should definitely have a warning to alert players that accepting and completing those missions will affect their Faction standings in a negative aspect. Also info pertaining to standings repair should be easily accessed in-game instead of being so obscure. Lastly CCP could add another group of NPC Agents strictly for Faction standing repair, sorta like the proposal I have listed in my forum signature.
Anyway, thanks again for the reply and good luck in the upcoming election.
DMC
'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
|
max ericshaun
The Suicide Express Rejection Of Sovereignty
120
|
Posted - 2017.03.04 00:13:27 -
[9] - Quote
If I vote for you, will you promise me alliance book marks?
Lost in space
|
Claevyan
The Suicide Express Rejection Of Sovereignty
15
|
Posted - 2017.03.05 10:24:24 -
[10] - Quote
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.
CSM 12: No Sov. No Agenda. No Promises.
|
|
Claevyan
The Suicide Express Rejection Of Sovereignty
15
|
Posted - 2017.03.06 14:16:20 -
[11] - Quote
EVE NT interview questions posted! https://eve-nt.uk/article/2017-03-05-104441-CSM12-Candidate-Claevyan/
CSM 12: No Sov. No Agenda. No Promises.
|
OmegaTwig
The Suicide Express Rejection Of Sovereignty
3
|
Posted - 2017.03.07 19:27:10 -
[12] - Quote
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
|
Cochise Chiricahua
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 06:36:11 -
[13] - Quote
07 Candidate!
First, thank you for your time and effort (both present and future) in representing the capsuleers of New Eden! TheyGÇÖre much appreciated.
IGÇÖm 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, thatGÇÖs 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 IGÇÖve 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? IGÇÖll 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, IGÇÖd 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.
|
Claevyan
The Suicide Express Rejection Of Sovereignty
17
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 16:58:04 -
[14] - Quote
Cochise Chiricahua wrote:07 Candidate! First, thank you for your time and effort (both present and future) in representing the capsuleers of New Eden! TheyGÇÖre much appreciated. IGÇÖm 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, thatGÇÖs 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 IGÇÖve 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? IGÇÖll 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, IGÇÖd 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
CSM 12: No Sov. No Agenda. No Promises.
|
max ericshaun
The Suicide Express Rejection Of Sovereignty
127
|
Posted - 2017.05.27 12:57:05 -
[15] - Quote
CSM 13 will happen!
Lost in space
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |