These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at

EVE Forums

Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2011-06-10 08:11
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-12-24 02:17
  • Likes Received: 241

Siobhan MacLeary

Security Status -1.0
  • Merch Industrial Member since
  • Goonswarm Federation Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Public access to the WIP spreadsheet seems to have been revoked.

  • [June] Fighter Damage Reduction in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Faruzen en Divalone wrote:
    Siobhan MacLeary wrote:
    "We want to reduce the income players receive from pirate bounties."

    Why not just, y'know, reduce the payout of bounties directly instead of defanging (super)carriers in PVP?

    That would also reduce payouts for ratters not using carriers. And that is not intended (and needed) IMO. Carriers are the core of the problem, but nerfing them overall is bad still.

    An alternative thought: decrease pirate SIG to make it harder to hit them with fighters.

    I feel increasingly like these changes are designed specifically to **** over goons.

    Rorqual nerfs, then pirate BS price increase, then carrier nerfs. In order: Screws with income for our members, screws with our future ability to supply high-end doctrines, then fucks with both line member income and utility in PvP.

  • [June] Fighter Damage Reduction in EVE Technology and Research Center

    "We want to reduce the income players receive from pirate bounties."

    Why not just, y'know, reduce the payout of bounties directly instead of defanging (super)carriers in PVP?

  • WTA Molok blueprint 1 run in EVE Marketplace

    *snip* ~ ISD Decoy

    27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

    Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.

  • [June] Nullsec Asteroid Cluster and Excavator Drone changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Nasar Vyron wrote:
    TLDR : should have always been Rorq = boost/utility ship, XYZ=micromanaged capital mining vessel. But since CCP felt the need to make the Rorq and actual mining vessel all this has turned into is a bait and switch to the players who invested in them.

    I said it before Rorq ever came out. I'll say it again.

    The Rorq should have had it's build cost reduced to that of a carrier. It should have only ever had 1 hulk worth of mining capabilities (rigs should not have effected excavators-i was actually against excavators altogether). The Industrial core should have never locked you in place, prevented jumping but not warping. This would have prevented infinite scaling and kept it as a boosting/utility mining vessel.

    At the same time they should have released an actual capital mining vessel around the cost of a Dreadnought. This ship would have been given the ability to mine the equivalent of around 5 hulks by use of a single mining laser. Use would have activated a minigame type window where you had to actively guide the laser to keep it centered on the asteroid to successfully mine. Basically the longer the laser is kept centered the higher yield obtained. Which would have prevented the infinite scaling issues we see today while rewarding the individual players who took the time to skill into these ships.

    So, that said, at this point the constant nerfing just feels like more and more of a bait and switch to those who skilled into a Rorq. These mistakes in balance and scalability were pointed out before their release but to a deaf ear. Now they are out and constantly getting nefed, and surprise surprise people are upset because you promised them one thing and are constantly taking that away bit by bit.

    When does CCP ever listen to the warnings their playerbase gives them about imbalanced stuff?

  • [June] Nullsec Asteroid Cluster and Excavator Drone changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
    Dirk MacGirk wrote:

    ... However, that change was in and of itself sufficient. The addition of a third nerf to excavators is overkill, and makes it harder to determine the outcome from the anomaly change. Why not see where that goes before dumping on excavators and Rorqual once again?

    CCP plz learn from this. Stop going back to the old-school CCP way of super nerf followed by super buff followed by super nerf followed by super buff seesaw that makes people hate you. Be measured and be Scientific in your approach by limiting the changing variable as much as possible to see how your changes are panning out, otherwise you don't know what is affecting your game.

    Implying the CCP design team has any conception of measured, scientific approaches to game balance.

    And to those beating the drum of "It's not just Fozzie making these changes he's not the only designer stop hating on the devs":

    Fozzie is the face of EVERY. SINGLE. ********. THING. That has been released since he was hired. Most notably, Fozziesov! So unless some other CCP decides to step up and be the messenger for stupid changes, Fozzie is the ONLY person we can talk to about them.

    If you don't want the messenger to get shot, stop sending the same messenger to deliver bad news.

  • [June] Nullsec Asteroid Cluster and Excavator Drone changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Oh boy, more CCPL "lol nerf goons" changes.

    I take it the latest MER made you do a spittake with your covfefe?

    E: And here I was thinking CCP was okay with nullsec regions finally having the ability to locally produce everything. These changes are going to utterly kill nullsec mining again. Good job!

  • High Sec Ganking - CONCORD Balance request in EVE Technology and Research Center

    NightmareX wrote:
    Nat Silverguard wrote:
    NightmareX wrote:
    Nat Silverguard wrote:
    NightmareX wrote:

    Like i said earlier, lame excuse for what the real issue is. Just because it's a game, doesn't mean you can just keep ganking other like no tomorrow without more consequences for keep doing it.

    why? if the game is about villainy, why should i not be a villain?

    because you said so? then, ..|..

    good day.

    The game is all about balance towards everyone. One side here is having a very low balance vs risks atm that should be fixed.

    it is balanced, and nothing you say, unless with proof, can convince me otherwise.

    Good for you. But ask any freighter pilots who gets ganked on how they feel about the gankers consequences if those risk vs reward mechanics this way are fair or bad. You know pretty well what they will tell you. But you wont admit it because you are a massive ganker ingame yourself and don't want to get harder time ganking the more you do it.

    Freighter pilots who overload their holds and autopilot around deserve to be taught a lesson.

    Most of them don't seem to learn a thing so we will keep applying a clue-by-four to their heads until they get it.

    Also, ganking things actually takes a fair amount of skilled organization so your argument that ganking is too easy is automagically invalid.


    ░░░░FOR KIDS░░░░

  • High Sec Ganking - CONCORD Balance request in EVE Technology and Research Center


    this is a game

    remove the stick from your ass and untwist your knickers, stop being stupid and stop acting like this suggestion of yours is anything beyond you going "Waaaaaaaah I got ganked waaaaaah CCP needs to cater to me waaaaaah"

  • Nullification and Interdiction in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not?

    No, except in the case of T3 cruisers fitted with the appropriate subsystem. Nullification should, on other ships, be a choice that negatively affects combat ability. Insta-warping nullified interceptors have removed a massive amount of the tactical function of area warp denial.

    How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts?

    Ships that exist solely to transport pilots or very small amounts of cargo - and cannot warp cloaked - are a reasonable target for nullification. Shuttles, basically. Yachts and Blockade Runners can warp cloaked, ergo have no need to be nullified since they already have tactics at their disposal to evade warp interdiction.

    Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist?
    Yes, anchorable bubbles should continue to exist, and additional forms of static emplacements - mobile turrets, anyone? - should be introduced. Said static emplacements should be subject to the decay and reinforcement mechanics like modern deployables, EG, if left floating unattended in space for more than 30 days they should unanchor, and when damaged should offline and enter a reinforcement period of reasonable length, perhaps four hours.

    Mechanics should also be introduced to limit the number of static emplacements within a given area ongrid, so it becomes mechanically impossible to surround a gate with hundreds of bubbles. A maximum of six bubbles and twenty-four mobile turrets within a given 1k km cuboid is where I would start, with further adjustments made as necessary.

  • Dev blog: EVE Online’s Growing New Great War: the Battle of M-OEE8 in EVE Information Center

    Good job biting hard onto Reddit's teats and reposting a screed filled with factual errors.

  • Vote Xenuria: CSM 11 - Reform The CSM in Council of Stellar Management

    Xrend wrote:

    Clearly you must have just resubbed to this game..... Russian Carebear Coalition??? Whatever. the only thing that even keeps Russians living in W-space is the TZ. No one likes shooting towers after DT.

    I've been subbed nonstop since 2011. Quazerknocks is a real thing - Lazerhawks, Hard Knocks, and the remnants of Quantum Explosion have banded together to push everyone else out of C6 Magnetar space and succeeded, then have proceeded to set up renters/alts in those systems to farm the sites.

  • Vote Xenuria: CSM 11 - Reform The CSM in Council of Stellar Management

    Vic Jefferson wrote:
    Xenuria wrote:

    I think there is a crucial piece of logic missing from your Master Stroke~.

    Without eve online, there is no space empire.

    To the best of my knowledge there is no "Content Rationing" happening in The Imperium. I have never seen anybody stop somebody from participating in a fleet op by saying "Woah there buddy haven't you had a little too much content today? Sit this one out."

    They don't need EvE Online to persist once they have cashed in their shares of website ad revenue or kickstarters. You have a very naive understanding of high level Goonery.

    Of course content is rationed, very carefully, very calculatingly. They keep perfect stasis on 2/3 of the map such that there cannot be a reasonable threat to their security. EvE is supposed to be about vibrant, Byzantine empires rising and falling on the fickle whims of very human gods; capsuleers. Any empire purely devoted to maintaining the past status quo in it's entirely is an empire in decline, yet they are happy to see such a gradual decline in the game and their empire so long as it feeds more than their in game wallets.

    Give KarmaFleet some FCs, have them toss cheap, disposable fleets around with no consequence, and their fresh crop of newbies is placated and mollified. They are rationed out cheap, meaningless content - gone is the gravity of actual fights, over things that may have meaning. They fed a two-bit propaganda stream about 'Our People' and how joining the Imperium is 'Winning', when in all actuality, it is losing by essentially removing all of the chips from the table; what fun is gambling, risking, and playing, when all of these are removed and all conflict is sport with no gravitas?

    This is the status quo they want to preserve, and content rationing is quite effective at it.

    This is some fantastic, nuclear-grade salt right here.

  • Adding a Clear Visual Cue to Wormhole Mass Stages in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Thor Kerrigan wrote:
    As it is right now, the visual "cue" we have is a one-time shrinking animation when a mass threshold is reached. However, with no reference point, it is impossible to tell the mass stage without actually showing info on it.

    Up until the last patch, there actually was a sound cue (the RRRHHHHH... RRRRHHHHH... annoying breathing sound) when more than 50% of mass was reduced but appears to have been removed now.

    Since an "end-of-life" hole has a clear flickering animation, size restrictions are colour-coded, WH classes have specific nebulae backgrounds, it would make sense that the final piece of vital information about a wormhole should also be clearly accessible without needing to right-click + show info. As it stands now, all of the above are nice eye-candy rendered irrelevant since anyone travelling through still has to show info in order to check the mass situation.

    What I propose is the following:

    Mass more than 50% (stable) - no special animation
    Mass less than 50% (disrupted, not critical yet) - slight, sporadic yellow-ish lightnings emanating from the wormhole
    Mass less than 10% (critical, verge of collapse) - regular, red-hued lightnings indicating imminent collapse

    I believe this would make for a much more immersive and intuitive experience when travelling through wormhole space, and the good old "show info" still remains to learn about the visual cue for new players.

    Also, while we are at it, the nebulae for C1 and C2 are very difficult to distinguish... Which usually is not an issue since regular hole connection will be green (C1) or white (C2), but the blue frigate-only wormholes make this distinction very difficult. I therefore suggest adding a slight blue-ish stripe to C1s similar to the dark purple one found in C3s.

    A mass-based visual effect is already ingame - the wormhole "model" shrinks when the wormhole is at half-mass and again when it is VoC. The "breathing" effect also still exists ingame so far as I am aware, you may want to adjust the advanced volume sliders.

    That said - I'm not against having some sort of special intermittent visual effect for wormhole mass percentage, as it is a little hard to memorize the visual size of each stage especially since we often play at varying zoom levels.

  • New camera now in opt-in Beta on TQ in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I'm not sure if this is strictly related, but ever since enabling the camera beta on my offset multi-monitor setup my capacitor readout will move from where I anchor it when I dock/undock.

    I have a 1680x1050 main screen and a 1280x1024 secondary to the right, and am spanning the EVE client across the two at a resolution of 2960x1050. The capacitor readout will either move itself as far as posibble to the left or right of the main screen when I undock from a station, instead of remaining relatively centered; this issue only occurs on a multi-monitor client with the camera beta enabled. It seems like it's trying to recenter itself relative to the total resolution at times, and other times the readout fails to offset itself from the bottom-left corner.

    E: This is on TQ, have not tested on Sisi.

    E2: Also, zoom level seems to be consistently reset to very far distance on gate/wormhole jump.

  • Feedback for the update to the "buff bar" in your Ship HUD. in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I see what you're going for here, but even as someone who is not colorblind it's a little hard to tell the difference between the two leftmost icons.

    My thoughts: Unshade the icons, make every icon have a cycle timer of the appropriate color. Blue for good things, red for bad. Icons could sit on a colored background, and where icons go should be directional - negative effects to the left of the centerline, positive effects to the right.

  • Vote Xenuria: CSM 11 - Reform The CSM in Council of Stellar Management

    Bernie Nator wrote:

    What are the current issues with wormholes?

    Not the candidate, but as someone relatively knowledgeable wrt w-space, I'd say that w-space in general is actually in a pretty good spot, aside from a large Russian carebear coalition being in control of all of the best C6 space.

    Most wormhole players, as far as I am aware, are content with the content available in w-space and would much rather CCP leave w-space well enough alone.

    Also, in regards to the topic at hand, I support Xenuria's CSM campaign both for his desire to reform the CSM to be more effective a tool for CCP and players alike, as well as his desire for nicer shoes and some goddamn headgear in EVE.

  • Gevlon Goblin for CSM XI in Council of Stellar Management

    Gevlon Goblin wrote:
    Grr CSM Grr Goons Grr CCP Grr Grr Grr

    I have already unvoted.

  • [WTS j105934] c6-c6 magnatar wormhole entrance "Nova" in EVE Marketplace

    50,000,000 ISK.

  • Dev blog: Building your Citadel, one block at a time in EVE Information Center

    Querns wrote:
    Siobhan MacLeary wrote:
    The loudest members of a group do not always make the best representatives of a group. I am still pretty strongly against there being no form of asset safety in w-space, as it's a bit of a kick in the teeth. Yes, yes, I know, I know, POSes currently drop loot as w-space Citadels are planned to. That's not the point. Citadels are replacing POSes and in k-space they get total, complete asset safety. W-space gets none whatsoever.

    I have repeatedly suggested that what does not drop from a Citadel in w-space should not be destroyed, it should be impounded and recoverable in that system by deploying another Citadel.

    Alas, you actually have to air your feedback for it to be taken into account. Why do you think we post so much?

    Actually, that's a bit of a misdirection; Goons love to post. It's our nature.

    The thing with k-space is that no one actually uses a POS for long-term storage. You'd be a fool to do so when outposts, or at the very least, NPC stations are so close by. Any attempts by CCP to rebuke asset safety in nullsec would be met by players shrugging their shoulders and evacuating to the nearest NPC station. CCP reneged on citadel destruction podding everyone logged off inside for the same reason; players would simply use the tedious, but guaranteed safe tactic of logging off in space to circumvent the risk.

    Wormhole residents, OTOH, have to put their assets at some risk due to the design space of the, er, space. Those who spoke against asset safety in wormholes wanted to preserve that. Whatever side of that argument you're on, you have to admit that allowing asset safety in j-space would be a paradigm shift for the status quo.

    I have aired my feedback, it being ignored or overlooked isn't something I can really do much about.

    As to the latter point - well, sure, it's a paradigm shift but all of Citadels is in a way. If my suggestion were to be implemented, it wouldn't detract from what the more predatory sandcastle-kickers in w-space want while allowing those who might have their sandcastle kicked over a decent chance at their stuff not all being gone or stolen.

    Stuff that doesn't drop is stuff that attackers wouldn't be able to get their hands on anyway, so where's the harm in setting up so what would normally be destroyed is impounded and recoverable if people friendly to you deploy a new Citadel in that wormhole system. Hell, I'd even settle for two rounds of loot fairy magic; the first governs what drops and what doesn't, then what doesn't drop is either destroyed or impounded for possible recovery later.

    E: Terrible text flowchart.

    Citadel destroyed

    Loot fairy magic 1 ▶ Some stuff drops

    Some stuff doesn't drop

    Loot fairy magic 2 ▶ Some of the stuff that didn't drop is impounded

    Stuff that isn't impounded and didn't drop is destroyed.

Forum Signature

Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.” - CCP Soundwave