Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kil2
Club Bear HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2011.06.14 09:11:00 -
[1]
Something the experts always spend a lot of time talking about off camera during the tournament is potential rules changes. I know everyone has good ideas and I'm curious about what they are!
Some requirements to keep in mind:
-We can't have a format with multiple grids. This would be ideal because pvp on TQ is rarely confined to an "arena" but in the tournament viewability is the number one priority.
-We can't be required to lock new ships mid-match. The camera ships have to stay cloaked during the match so they don't disrupt the teams in the competition in any way and locking mid-match would require uncloaked camera ships.
-No capitals. Its feasible that caps could play some kind of support role but in almost every imaginable application they would just be boring and pointless.
-It needs to be fun to watch!
Excited to hear your ideas. -Kil2
ps - this thread is in no way endorsed, supported, or read by actual tournament organizers so don't get your hopes up If theres something amazing though, I can pay Raivi in Hydra related intel to make him convince CCP by force.
|
ScoRpS
0utbreak Outbreak.
|
Posted - 2011.06.14 09:25:00 -
[2]
Edited by: ScoRpS on 14/06/2011 09:35:37 I like the way the current rules keep the fittings sort of affordable. But to get the pace of carnage up for atX:
1) Get rid of logistic ships altogether.
2) 2 recons maximum per team.
3) Reduce the point value of hacs (11)?
4) split point values in t1 battle ship classes. tier 1, tier 2, tier 3 etc at the moment theres very little versatility or use for battle ship class.
And make the whole tournament 10 man team knock out from beggining without qualifiers and group stages. This will help alot against fixing matches by virtue of elimination and self sacrafice.
And lastly get Loxy some help. I think he has way too much on his shoulders.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2011.06.14 09:26:00 -
[3]
I actually think I know a work around to the new multiple regions rule.If a team has left over points they can have ships waiting off grid.
At any time the team in the ring can warp out a ship if it's equal or less than the left over points and swap in a ship waiting out side.
so kinda like tag teaming it.
You could for instance, field 50 points of ships. Then wrap out your ship before it dies to tag in your partner.
just a weird crazy not so serious idea : )
|
Millie Clode
Amarr Insert Cool Name Here
|
Posted - 2011.06.14 10:24:00 -
[4]
Allow the use of sling bubbles in the arena. You could totally shag your opponents battle plan by drawing them out of position before the match even starts :) ---------- Who, me? |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
|
Posted - 2011.06.14 10:29:00 -
[5]
Hey, Kil2, it looks like I've stolen your hood ---
Originally by: CCP Greyscale Is the Nighthawk actually underpowered?
|
Kil2
Club Bear HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2011.06.14 10:37:00 -
[6]
I hated that hood anyway =)
at least now you really look like a rocket wizard
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.06.14 11:29:00 -
[7]
Limit the amount of specialized eWar ships to three of any one type, so we avoid the gimp-fights where one participant has to wait for a lucky RNG result. In short: ECM is stupidly powerful in small gang environments so should be artificially restricted until CCP gets their thumbs out and makes it BetterÖ.
Seeding system so we don't get the mockery that is Group D where everyone with half an IQ knew who was going through before the first shot was even fired.
|
Mr Rive
Black Omega Security Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2011.06.14 11:30:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Mr Rive on 14/06/2011 11:31:54 Flagships should have a reduced cost, it would allow them to be implimented, and we would see a hell of a lot more expensive explosions.
Of course, the other option is, which has been advocated for quite a while on these forums would be to remove implants. Implants, while they can dramatically change a team, do not do much to sway the outcome of a match. This might seem a contraditory statement, but if you think about the last 2 matches PL has played, i can say with confidence that we could have easily won them without implants, and conversely, the enemy would not have won if they had had all 5%'s. However, if for instance 2 identical rush teams were to face each other, one with 5%'s and one with no implants at all, the team with more isk, but not necessarily more piloting skill would win. I don't think this is the right way round. Removing implants altogether would not only seem logical, as it would put less rich teams on a more even playing field, but it would also be easy to police with the new assets CCP has (or im assuming has, due to posts on this forum). I would go one further and to say that removing implants and adding boosters would be a slight change that could make things very intersting. As you have said before, variables always make for a more interesting tournament, and i dont see a downside to adding boosters.
That is really about it. I think the ruleset as it is makes for a very dymanic tournament every year. Obviously fiddling with the points makes it more interesting, but other than doing a complete overhaul of the entire ruleset, I think CCP has hit the nail on the head in terms of competetivness.
That said, perhaps the way teams are advanced to the next rounds needs a bit of change. I don't like the fact that our next match with HYDRA is a pretty pointless one (literally) for both sides.
The problem is, it is very difficult to up the number of ships on the field without making it very difficult to what know is going on. I think an alternative to mix it up somewhat would be to perhaps impliment individual rules for each match in advance, for instance, a gallente only team, or to say that this match you are allowed 120 points worth of ships. I think it COULD make it more interesting, but it would be very complicated not only to police the rules, but to adapt to the changes each match. It would definately get rid of some 'unbeatable' (i use that term loosely) setups you see with the current rules.
The biggest problem with rulechanges like the one stated above, is it gives the 'better' teams an advantage. We tend to adapt faster than most teams, which while everyone should be able to do, it makes for more of a whitewash when rule changes are implimented. As you know this is true for virtually all changes you can make. The incentive really is high enough for people to want to put the effort in, and if they did, i think a massive mix up of the rules each year would be appropriate and welcomed. As we are, it will just cause teams like ourselves, and HYDRA and the like, to win over and over again. I think this year we are closer to seeing an upset than at any other point, simply BECAUSE the rules have not been changed.
Perhaps over the next couple of years, while interest in the tournament grows, the incentive for people to adapt to rule changes will increase. Otherwise it will just end up with the big hitters winning every year, which would be boring as hell.
|
Vokradacka
|
Posted - 2011.06.14 11:36:00 -
[9]
1) no 5vs5!!!
2) changes - point value of logistics to 16-18 (12 is a joke) - HACs/FaC 13 ->12 - HICs 13 -> 10 - split command ships(14/16)
3) change penalty/handicap points (+ maybe 150% of scored points for winning team , 75% for L.)
|
Harotak
Malicious Destruction
|
Posted - 2011.06.14 11:46:00 -
[10]
More points. 150 points per team would make battleships much more common.
|
|
Awesome Possum
Original Sin. PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
|
Posted - 2011.06.14 12:01:00 -
[11]
I liked the 5v5 qualifiers, keep 'em.
However, I think you should allow every alliance that forks over the cash to compete in those 5v5s. This way there'd be no whining from big alliances about CCP "intentionally" keeping them out, or small alliances about not being able to "buy" their way in like the big alliances. Who cares if qualifiers take a few weekends... CCP shouldn't be allowed free time anyways.
Disallow logistics during those 5v5s.
Reduce the number of ewar (coughECMcough) hulls allowed.
Increase available points and reduce cost on battleships, I want to see some slobberknockers.
Allow C-Type mods, c'mon they're cheap as hell for the most part, let people use them. ♥
|
Andrea Griffin
|
Posted - 2011.06.14 13:00:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Awesome Possum Allow C-Type mods, c'mon they're cheap as hell for the most part, let people use them.
Allow the use of deadspace / faction mods on any ship for an additional point cost. Perhaps a sliding scale based on meta level.
- "When I nerf something, it takes 2-3 months for your dreams to be crushed." - CCP Big Dumb Object |
Alar Tangor
Caldari Decadence.
|
Posted - 2011.06.14 13:22:00 -
[13]
Allow missiles that are already in flight some sort of overtime like in basketball/soccer where balls in flight are still counted when they score even after the blow of the whistle
Just a thought because it happened to us last match (and no i don't want CCP to re-rule their decision)
Also formulate the rules concerning handicap/point values ect clearer. A lot of the current rules are formulated incredibly vague and split across two pages (rules and format)
|
Narciss Sevar
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2011.06.14 13:28:00 -
[14]
Logistics Cruiser - 16 Battleship, Faction - 15 Marauder - 14 Battleship - 14 Black Ops Battleship - 14 Command Ship - 13 Strategic Cruiser - 13 Cruiser, Faction - 12 Heavy Assault Cruiser - 11 Battlecruiser (Tier 2) - 11 Recon Ship - 11 Heavy Interdictor - 11 Battlecruiser (Tier 1) - 8 Cruiser - 6 Bomber - 5 Electronic Attack Frigate - 4 Frigate, Faction - 3 Assault Frigate - 3 Interdictor - 2 Interceptor - 2 Frigate - 2 Tech 1 Industrial Ships - 1 Destroyer - 1
|
DeadNite
Caldari Detrimental Imperative
|
Posted - 2011.06.14 13:28:00 -
[15]
Perhaps eventually we could have more "weights" in the tournament with the 10v10 (or bigger) being the main attraction.
5v5 - Smallest grid. - Smallest number of points able to be fielded. - No Faction ships allowed. - No EWAR allowed (including drones). - No logistics (including drones). - No flagships.
10v10 - Medium grid. - Medium number of points able to be fielded. - Faction ships allowed - No EWAR allowed (excluding drones). - Single flagship. - Single logistics (Logistics drones allowed).
?v? - Biggest grid - Largest number of points able to be fielded. - Faction ships allowed - All EWAR allowed. - Multiple flagships. - Multiple logistics.
That way everyone has something they can compete in. With the increased manpower needed to run something like this, you could perhaps start charging a premium fee. Have them every six months or something to keep interest peaked in the tournament. ================== It is, what it is. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
|
Posted - 2011.06.14 13:49:00 -
[16]
Allow Crystal set to promote active local tanks which just aren't viable atm. Also allow Deadspace (local) armour reppers to compensate this.
Things like dual Golems will look much more attractive. Not sure which smiley to insert here or . I guess I'll end up using this one: ---
Originally by: CCP Greyscale Is the Nighthawk actually underpowered?
|
Iggy Stooge
|
Posted - 2011.06.14 13:52:00 -
[17]
Do away with group stages, make the tourney a straight knock-out event, 64/32/16/8/4/2. Too many matches with nothing riding on them, too much opportunity to make up for mistakes in present format. Make it a straight knock-em down, drag-em out affair.
|
Freelancer'Spb
Fremen Sietch DarkSide.
|
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:08:00 -
[18]
2 points for t1 frigate and 11(or 10) points for HACs if we want to see these ships in the tournament.
Also agreed with Mr Rive - no implants would be much more fair.
|
LtCol Laurentius
Zor Industries Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:24:00 -
[19]
Originally by: ScoRpS Edited by: ScoRpS on 14/06/2011 09:44:37 I like the way the current rules keep the fittings sort of affordable. But to get the pace of carnage up for atX:
1) Get rid of logistic ships altogether. Only local repping.
They did this in AT6 after many boring dual logi matches in AT5. The result was however that there was suddenly no way you could hope to keep alive typical force multiplier ships like recons, EAFs, destroyers, interdictors, interceptors, bombers etc, and the result was one-dimensional slug matches where buffer and DPS output was the only considerations. A fresh change from AT5 to be sure, but not enough variation. By the final day of the tourney, every team fielded either 8-10 max buffered faction cruisers / battlecruisers (HACs were too many points) or a mix of battleships and max buffered assault frigates.
|
Admiral Goberius
Amarr Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:53:00 -
[20]
- remove racial jammers - customize points for shiptypes and not shipclasses, start by modifying some and do a more comprehensive list every year (i.e. rooks and sleipnirs +1 points, pilgrim and nighthawk -1 points) - reduce battleship points cost, increase logistics point cost - tourney partecipants whose name starts with A are allowed to be ballers and explore yove space
|
|
ThrashPower
Gallente Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2011.06.14 15:09:00 -
[21]
Do something with frigate, interdictor and interceptor having the same point cost, also look at the price range of t2 cruisers. I suggest this is done by making teams field 1000 points (and obviously increasing ship prices across the board) giving more room to sort prices.
Another idea which I am not sure if is a good one though, would be to limit the amount of warfarelinks a team can field, this might reduce the amount of battlecruiser / t3 hull heavy teams and give pilots more options.
|
LeviUK
Black Omega Security Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2011.06.14 15:19:00 -
[22]
I think the rules themselves are fairly good at the moment, the mechanics of the tourney itself seem to be the real weakness this year. + Rules should be posted _well_ in advance, the guys that are interested in AT all gave feedback this year, but it was extremely messy. Previous captains(say final 16) should also be consulted for feelings on ideas - before the draft rules are formulated. For example to check what they think of 5v5. + The 5v5, its easy to see the logic, but in reality I don't think it would have made any difference to make it 10v10 - wins had very little to do with skill or strat of any form. + Brackets without true seeding does not result in a linear progression in skill/good match-ups. (to get a valid statistic, perhaps use predefined ships+fits v0v) + ECM is always going to be a sticky issue, I don't think limiting ships will do much to make it better, limiting module count however may be. Sure it'll be replace damps or whatever, but as you go down that tree things become easier to dynamically counter.
On general terms : + The client needs some functionality in the tactical overview to anchor sphere around an object(s). These anchored bubbles could show up a wireframe (I cant think of something better to show depth with less stuff on screen) sphere in space - allowing pilots to see the edge of the arena (even out of tactical overview, via hotkey toggle?). This would also be useful for everything from gate camping to estimating docking radii for stations. + The small armor/shield/hull/cap transfer mods could really do with their fittings revised to be much lower as well as the amount being much higher. (logistics frigs will 0wn)
|
QwaarJet
Gallente hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2011.06.14 16:21:00 -
[23]
I don't think much needs to change.
- Decrease points cost of faction battleships. - Limit number of jamming/dampening ships. - Allow every team that applies to get into the tournament, and have some kind of broadcast setup for every match, even if It is radio. - Increase arena size. - Increase Recon Ship points cost. - Decrease Marauder points cost. - Increase T3 points cost. - Decrease Assault Frigate points cost. - Increase Interdictor points cost. - Ditch Flagships completely. - Don't even consider bringing back the banning rule.
I'm concerned about the massive number of Minmatar ships, but there isn't a rule change that could really fix that.
|
Kil2
Club Bear HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2011.06.14 16:30:00 -
[24]
Thanks guys.
Keep it coming. I'm hoping to consolidate a lot of the good stuff from here with some of our own discussions and submit some kind of proposal before we leave iceland.
Again, in the end the tournament organizers here can do whatever they want, but I think they will value our input.
|
Admiral Goberius
Amarr Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2011.06.14 16:35:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Kil2 Thanks guys.
Keep it coming. I'm hoping to consolidate a lot of the good stuff from here with some of our own discussions and submit some kind of proposal before we leave iceland.
Again, in the end the tournament organizers here can do whatever they want, but I think they will value our input.
one year later
"hai guis wouldnt it be hilarious if you could ban an enemy ship right before the match XD ???"
- CCP Sreegs
|
Jaigar
|
Posted - 2011.06.15 02:13:00 -
[26]
One thing I have liked throughout the ATs is the change in point value. The current point system's logistics price make it way too cheap to bring logistics. If logistics were upped to match Tech 3 (or both changed to 18), you might see might viable teams that don't have logistics. However you don't want to overcompensate.
The other thing that was mentioned was HACs. HACs are too expensive for their use. Sadly they are sub-par to tier 2 battlecrusiers in terms of damage and tank. Their slightly smaller sig radius doesn't help too much vs. medium weapons, and since battleships aren't used often in the tournament, they don't gain much at all from it.
I like the setup of this years tournament with the 5-man pre-quals. I think the 5-man teams offer something the 10-mans don't. With only 5-pilots the individual skill plays an even bigger role. Point cost play just as big (if not bigger) role here than in the 10-man. Some minor adjustments would be nice, such as tier 1 BC costs moving to 11 points to prevent the 5-man BC rush team. I know this strategy didn't always work, but it was disappointing to see not-so-coordinated BC teams win.
Sleipnirs are also particularly strong. Its not that I don't like them (I love me sleipnir), its just that sleipnirs are incredibly strong in the tournament. I know its not the best argument to up command ship cost seeing how the other command ships aren't nearly as good, but the alliance tournament isn't about ship balance. Its about entertainment. New and inventive setups are something we all enjoy as well. We've seen artillery sleipnirs fielded twice last weekend, both with good results.
So in short: encourage more cruisers, HACs, and battleships use through lowering points. This gives a greater distribution of ship size and offers newer players more insight into combat.
|
Uilamin Darkwynd
Amarr Dead poets society The Laughing Men
|
Posted - 2011.06.15 03:49:00 -
[27]
One thing that could be done to help 'balance' the ship point costs is to have the point costs for each ship type vary between each round.
Have it that the 3 ship types used the most (up to that point in the tourny [discounting matches played in the current round]) cost an extra point to field
The 3 ship types used the least cost 1 point less. (potentially disregarding non-combat ships)
Or something similar (maybe with each round a ship type stays on the list the modifier increases by one)
|
veldftw
|
Posted - 2011.06.15 05:14:00 -
[28]
how about making the ship points cost rise if u bring more than 1 of the ship.
1 sleip will cost 16 points the second will cost 18 points the third will cost 20 points
however u can still bring 1 sleip, 1 claymore and 1 nighthawk for 16 points each
|
Shamis Orzoz
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2011.06.15 05:21:00 -
[29]
I'd recommend some point changes:
Faction cruisers - lower them to 13 points. T1 Cruisers - lower them to 7 points. haulers - 1 point battleships/marauders/blackops - 17 points faction battleships - 20 points t1 frigates - 2 points
Other than that, if you add a few more ships to the limit, we could have more interesting fights with more diverse tactics. |
Mutnin
Amarr Mutineers
|
Posted - 2011.06.15 06:48:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Mutnin on 15/06/2011 06:58:10
EW ship points should go up or fielding multiple of same type of EW specific ship types, should add an extra point penalty. Need to do something to stop the ECM teams that cause for boring matches, for the same reason they limit logistic ships.
|
|
Thresh Avery
Best Path Inc. Cascade Imminent
|
Posted - 2011.06.15 07:56:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Thresh Avery on 15/06/2011 07:59:55 Essentially i think the format of the tournament is as good as it's ever going to get without a being rebuilt from the ground up with a fresh (and probably very unpopular) new angle.
Some points adjustments to give teams an opportunity for fresh setups and possibly a small shake up on fitting rules would probably do the trick. Aside from that, the inclusion of an "additional theme" like implementing flagships would make each tournament unique. Thank god CCP came to their senses on the banning rule though...
Points adjustments:
* Battleship, Faction - 19 (-2) * Marauder - 18 * Black Ops Battleship - 18 * Battleship (Tier 3) - 18 * Battleship (Tier 2) - 16 * Command Ship - 16 * Strategic Cruiser - 16 * Battleship (Tier 1) - 15 * Logistics Cruiser - 14 (+2) * Recon Ship - 14 (+1) * Battlecruiser (Tier 2) - 13 * Heavy Interdictor - 12 (-1) * Heavy Assault Cruiser - 12 (-1) * Cruiser, Faction - 11 (-3) * Battlecruiser (Tier 1) - 10 * Bomber - 8 (+2) * Cruiser - 6 (-2) * Electronic Attack Frigate - 5 * Assault Frigate - 4 * Interdictor - 4 (+1) * Interceptor - 3 * Frigate, Faction - 3 (-1) * Industrials, Tech 1 - 3 * Destroyer - 2 * Frigate - 2 (-1)
To explain a few of them: - frigates are worse than destroyers, so they shouldn't be more expensive - cruisers still aren't used much, dropping a point or two could get them in action, because currently nobody would value them equal to two interdictors - bombers are powerful, but could stay at 6 points; i listed them as 8 as the upper limit - faction cruisers are way overpriced and way underused as a result - raising the price of logistics really makes teams think about their worth; as it stands, they're a dead cert for most alliances - battleships are overpriced which is why they rarely get a look in, so the tier 1 and 2 variants are a lot cheaper and should encourage their use
Fittings changes: - No implants (same point as Mr Rive - sound reasoning) - No racial jammers (just supporting Gobbins on this one, it's a simple rule to reduce the strength of ECM which is overpowered in small scale combat) or no more than 2 of each Recon or EAF (eg. You could have 3 recons if it's 2 Rooks, 1 Falcon and 3 EAFs if it's 2 Kitsunes, 1 Hyena) - No warfare links? (Personally i like it how it is, but it could make things interesting)
Finally, going back to the unique themes, last year somebody said a tournament inside the various wormholes would be interesting; each fight would have different phenomena (halfway down page) applied to it. It would have to be a class 1 wormhole so that the bonuses/drawbacks weren't too heavily influential, but i think with some thought it could work very well.
|
Kil2
Club Bear HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2011.06.15 09:05:00 -
[32]
good stuff guys.
Quote:
Finally, going back to the unique themes, last year somebody said a tournament inside the various wormholes would be interesting;
This is something that keeps coming up. One thing i dont like about it is the idea of not knowing what kind of wormhole effect you would have for a match. it would add randomness to the results and i dont think we need that.
what if there was a different effect assigned to each day of the tournament? everyone knew what to expect but we would see entirely different types of stuff on each day.
I think the biggest problem with that is that seeing the setups evolve over the course of the tournament is fun, and that would be diminished to an extent. i guess teams also wouldnt be as motivated to hold back their really strong stuff until later. but then again that takes away an element of the tournament that we struggle to make guesses about currently.
anyway, thanks all. glad some pros stopped by =)
|
Terianna Eri
Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn
|
Posted - 2011.06.15 10:24:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Terianna Eri on 15/06/2011 10:24:54 I would not like to see things like "today we do Gallente-only setups". While this will definitely force new kinds of setups, I don't know if it'll actually result in better fights or more inventive setups (i.e. i can forsee restrictions that will result in only one or two obvious fleets that remain good). Additionally, some restrictions may hurt smaller alliances who may simply not have enough pilots to field viable all-Gallente (for example) setups.
EDIT: restrictions like "you have to warp in at zero" might be fun though
I would like to see (rules changes): -Point cost reduction on HACs, battleship hulls, HICs (cost as much as HACs? lol), faction cruisers, and T1 cruisers. -Point cost increase on logistics and T3s -Restrictions on ECM as it is the least interactive EWAR mechanic and leads to short, swingy fights one way or another. Banning racial ECM is my favorite way to do it so far - if you know what your opponent is going to bring, you should have to do more than say "lol ok bring 3 rooks with amarr jammers" to exploit that. -More sources of remote repping aside from Logi/T3/drones. Maybe 1 RR/ship -Slightly smaller arenas (200k instead of 250k across?)
Torn on group stages. On one hand, I like the fact that it allows a way for every team to have at least 3 matches cast on EVETV, which is very cool. Also it allows teams to really plan out their matches since they know who they'll be fighting well ahead of time. On the other hand having matches where the result is literally irrelevant is.. questionable. Irrelevant matches can be fun because either team can bring really whatever they damn well please but also boring because there's nothing riding on it. Personally I lend towards the former - more matches per team and the possibility of having "lols" fights is worth it to me.
Would really like prequalifiers to be cast next time.
I would like to see (but don't know how to encourage it with rules): -MORE LASERS -MORE BLASTERS -LESS AUTOCANNONS But of course Minmatar ships are extremely good in tournament settings so I don't know if it's possible to get these. ________________
Originally by: CCP Incognito PS the "time to P*nis" is the shortest time recorded in human history. :)
|
Mr Rive
Black Omega Security Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2011.06.15 10:41:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Terianna Eri
I would like to see (but don't know how to encourage it with rules): -MORE LASERS -MORE BLASTERS -LESS AUTOCANNONS But of course Minmatar ships are extremely good in tournament settings so I don't know if it's possible to get these.
I think the best way to do this would be to add wormhole like additions to each bracket. For instance, the first bracket got a 10% optimal range bonus to hybrid turrets, and remote reps had a 50% less effective optimal range. This would make teams use 'the best' setups they had for every bracket. If done poorly though it would just mess things up for smaller teams.
You could do the same thing in the groups instead of the brackets, so each initial group had a bonus and a negative effect to work around. This would stop people using the same setups in each bracket. It would have to be removed after the group stages though
|
Jade Constantine
Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2011.06.15 11:25:00 -
[35]
Quite a few ship costs need rebalancing but thats covered by other posters here nicely.
My main criticism/advise would be to ditch the pre-qualifier / group stuff and just run the whole show as a 128 team max knockout tournament out of the gate.
128 64 32 16 8 4 2
Just run it like the FA cup. Past winner and runner up automatically gets into the draw - otherwise allow 126 teams to put in a billion isk stake and just turn up and try their luck. If you have difficulty with televising of first round then so be it the 64v64 first weekend could be un-broadcast. But broadcast all the rest of the matches to the final.
This would as mentioned earlier in the thread remove some of the metagaming / fixed matches and return the tournament to a pure spectacle where the winner needs to win 7 straight matches - the maximum number of potential teams get to enter - and there is giant-killing opportunity for no-namers against the big boys from week 1.
I feel in recent years the focus on points manipulation and complicated pre-qualifying rounds have detracted from the pure spirit of the tournament which is "win your match".
Join the Revolution!
|
Narciss Sevar
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2011.06.15 13:29:00 -
[36]
Only allow a setup to be used once per tournament.
|
Shamis Orzoz
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2011.06.15 13:39:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Terianna Eri Edited by: Terianna Eri on 15/06/2011 10:24:54 I would not like to see things like "today we do Gallente-only setups". While this will definitely force new kinds of setups, I don't know if it'll actually result in better fights or more inventive setups (i.e. i can forsee restrictions that will result in only one or two obvious fleets that remain good). Additionally, some restrictions may hurt smaller alliances who may simply not have enough pilots to field viable all-Gallente (for example) setups.
EDIT: restrictions like "you have to warp in at zero" might be fun though
I would like to see (rules changes): -Point cost reduction on HACs, battleship hulls, HICs (cost as much as HACs? lol), faction cruisers, and T1 cruisers. -Point cost increase on logistics and T3s -Restrictions on ECM as it is the least interactive EWAR mechanic and leads to short, swingy fights one way or another. Banning racial ECM is my favorite way to do it so far - if you know what your opponent is going to bring, you should have to do more than say "lol ok bring 3 rooks with amarr jammers" to exploit that. -More sources of remote repping aside from Logi/T3/drones. Maybe 1 RR/ship -Slightly smaller arenas (200k instead of 250k across?)
Torn on group stages. On one hand, I like the fact that it allows a way for every team to have at least 3 matches cast on EVETV, which is very cool. Also it allows teams to really plan out their matches since they know who they'll be fighting well ahead of time. On the other hand having matches where the result is literally irrelevant is.. questionable. Irrelevant matches can be fun because either team can bring really whatever they damn well please but also boring because there's nothing riding on it. Personally I lend towards the former - more matches per team and the possibility of having "lols" fights is worth it to me.
Would really like prequalifiers to be cast next time.
I would like to see (but don't know how to encourage it with rules): -MORE LASERS -MORE BLASTERS -LESS AUTOCANNONS But of course Minmatar ships are extremely good in tournament settings so I don't know if it's possible to get these.
The only way to see more lasers and more blasters would be to lower the point cost of gallente and amarr would be to fine tune the points PER SHIP. Something like: brutix 9 points cyclone 10 points harbinger 12 points hurricane 13 points sleipnir 16 points abso 15 points etc
I think the proteus is a great ship, but generally speaking all gallente and amarr ships in the tourney are much weaker than their caldari/minmatar counterparts. There are several notable exceptions like the curse, but you could drop most amarr/gal ship costs by 1 point and I think people would use them a lot, they are just very slightly worse than min/cal.
|
Mr Rive
Black Omega Security Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2011.06.15 13:45:00 -
[38]
Yes but they cant do that or CCP would have to admit their ships are unbalanced
|
thoth rothschild
The Priesthood The 0rphanage
|
Posted - 2011.06.15 14:12:00 -
[39]
Edited by: thoth rothschild on 15/06/2011 14:12:21 I really love sleipnirs, sabres and cyclones but after 2 years in a row i would like to see somethin' different.
Suggestion : Make the ship cost increase per amount of a certain ship.
Example 3 Sleipnirs sleipnir 16 + sleipnir 18 + sleipnir 20 = 54
but Example Sleipnir + Astarte + claymore sleipnir 16 + astarte 16 + claymore 16 = 48
|
M4n1c M1n3r
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
|
Posted - 2011.06.15 16:18:00 -
[40]
Firstly, the things this year that worked well:
The 5v5s mixed things up nicely and IÆd like to see them stay. Like everyone else, IÆd love to see them all broadcast in some shape or form. I also agree with others that there shouldnÆt need to be a limit to the number of entrants since the 5v5s could be held over several weekends, a month or more before the actual 32-team æmain eventÆ.
Allowing Alliances to be formed for people to compete by setting the deadline AFTER the tourney dates had been announced. I know there were plenty of discussions regarding alt alliances but RvB were only able to compete because of this change.
3 simple things to improve the tourney:
1. It seems the obvious and easiest change to the tourney is to amend the points cost of certain ships. But IMO, rather than have each of us describe our own preference, it would be better to do it based on the ships actually fielded each year.
Because of the 1 x logi rule you would need to multiply the number of logis fielded by 3 to correctly gauge their popularity vs the other ships.
For example: At the end of the tourney, sort the ship classes by number fielded this year. Increase the cost to the top 25% (those that have been fielded most) by 1 point. Decrease the cost to the bottom 25% by 1 point. Leave the middle 2 quarters as they are.
This would provide for a gradual refinement of ship costs based on their actual worth as demonstrated through use, rather than some gut feeling. It would also be very simple to do.
2. Split ship classes into named ships. I know this will make the points list longer and slightly complicate things, but there are very clearly, large differences between the worth of individual ships within each ship class. This change could then be used with number 1 to ensure each shipÆs cost is gradually corrected to reflect its true worth.
3. Rather than wait until 6 weeks before we fight, why not tweak the rules now and get them posted along with (at least some) provisional dates. This will allow the smaller Alliances a better chance of competing against the bigger ones. The bigger alliances have the resources to test many more ideas for longer throughout the year and are therefore better able to adapt to last minute changes. By getting the rules out there earlier, the smaller teams can use what practice time they can get throughout the year practicing actual tourney fleets. As it is, æcrammingÆ in the last couple of weeks while being watched by the neutrals in local does nothing but handicap those that least need it. Better challenges from the smaller and younger teams will be more fun to watch for everyone.
|
|
veldftw
|
Posted - 2011.06.15 18:23:00 -
[41]
Originally by: thoth rothschild Edited by: thoth rothschild on 15/06/2011 14:34:38 Edited by: thoth rothschild on 15/06/2011 14:12:21 I really love sleipnirs, sabres and cyclones but after 2 years in a row i would like to see somethin' different.
Suggestion : Make the ship cost increase per amount of a certain ship.
Example 3 Sleipnirs sleipnir 16 + sleipnir 18 + sleipnir 20 = 54
but Example Sleipnir + Astarte + claymore sleipnir 16 + astarte 16 + claymore 16 = 48
or go back to 2 Ships of one type limit.
i love people who reply without reading the thread they are replying to.... (read my reply in the first page, near the end)
|
Thresh Avery
Best Path Inc. Cascade Imminent
|
Posted - 2011.06.15 20:18:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Kil2 good stuff guys.
Quote:
Finally, going back to the unique themes, last year somebody said a tournament inside the various wormholes would be interesting;
This is something that keeps coming up. One thing i dont like about it is the idea of not knowing what kind of wormhole effect you would have for a match. it would add randomness to the results and i dont think we need that.
what if there was a different effect assigned to each day of the tournament? everyone knew what to expect but we would see entirely different types of stuff on each day.
Haha, i never suggested it would be random, because that could just screw up any team's chances when they land on the grid - it's a possibility though, but not a good idea.
Different phenomena each day could work nicely, it'll force teams to think differently and use different setups, meaning there won't be several alliances using the same setup each time and being predicted by the more experienced teams.
Using this year's format: the qualifiers could be 10v10 without phenomena, group stage 1 (wolf rayet), group stage 2 (cataclysmic variable), group stage 3 (black hole), finals day (red giant). Here's the link again for those that aren't familiar with wormhole phenomena - it's halfway down the page.
The other method is that CCP could provide an example of the schedule and state that each team in the group stages will have one game inside a wolf rayet, cataclysmic variable and black hole, so the teams know what they'll need to practice for well in advance. That way we could see a mixture of matches of different phenomena in the same day to prevent seeing too much of one phenomena in a day.
Originally by: Kil2 I think the biggest problem with that is that seeing the setups evolve over the course of the tournament is fun, and that would be diminished to an extent. i guess teams also wouldnt be as motivated to hold back their really strong stuff until later. but then again that takes away an element of the tournament that we struggle to make guesses about currently.
Well by keeping the whole of the finals day to one phenomena it means that we'll be able to see plenty of setups under the same circumstances, which means the experienced teams will still be able to hold back their better setups until the end. I suggested the Red Giant (modifiers to smartbomb range/damage, heat damage and overload bonus) for the finals as it's not too skewed in favour of a certain type of setup. The effects are still there, but teams won't feel they are limited to sticking with only shield setups, for example.
And obviously the day of finals should be fixed to just one phenomena, because the day is hectic enough as it is currently. If CCP release the rules of AT X a good 8-10 weeks before it begins and list the phenomena the teams would be facing each day, then there's ample advanced warning for the alliances to prepare for the tournament.
Originally by: Kil2 anyway, thanks all. glad some pros stopped by =)
Are you suggesting i'm one of those pros?
Gutted i'm not playing this year - maybe next time!
|
Laminar Septimar
Gallente German Kings
|
Posted - 2011.06.16 12:09:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Laminar Septimar on 16/06/2011 12:13:31
- A stacking penalty on the amount of the shiptype of the same Category would be very interesting(E.G. one Recon 13 pt., two Recons 28pt. three Recons 46pt. Increasing the value of each ship)
- keep Logistics in the 5vs5 but remove them for the 10vs10
- Open the 5vs5 for everyone not only to a random picked group. You don't broadcast them at all so why should you care about the number of participants ?
|
Kagumichan
|
Posted - 2011.06.16 16:04:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Kagumichan on 16/06/2011 16:10:17 Limit the amount of EWAR specific ships (e.g/ only 1 rook, 1 kitsune etc.), EWAR fights as everyone knows is booooooring so minimizing them would increase the amount of slug-fest fights we'd see, and maybe we'd see more of the lesser used ships then (more amarr, more gallente etc.) as they'd be less likely to get messed up by jammers, dampners etc.
It may even make it a bit easier for the small alliances to have fairer fights and stand a chance of getting anywhere in the AT, as teams such as PL wouldn't be able to use their common-place ewar setup to jam and gank the opposing team (then maybe they may even lose some ships :O) and it'd make the matches more fun to watch and commentate as it wouldn't be a case of "oh this side is losing ALL their ships as expected, the ewar team has no damage as usual blah blah blah *yawn*"
p.s i'm not knocking any of the commentators, they do a great job and i love the rambling during boring bits like when frigs decide to orbit to deny points, it's quite informative sometimes, it's just that seeing the same thing over and over again is a total yawnsville. Seeing a team bring an ewar setup makes me want to fast-forward to the next match in hope that there'll be something different.
|
Laminar Septimar
Gallente Jelly Kings
|
Posted - 2011.06.16 16:42:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Laminar Septimar on 16/06/2011 16:43:58 Edited by: Laminar Septimar on 16/06/2011 16:43:17 Another Point I want to mention for the next AT is the Stability and Accessibilty of SiSi; PLS don't run any major updates on it during the AT because it is tedious if you have to download like a 500MB-Patch day by day just to get online! SiSi is of upmost importance for all the Alliances to test and compete their setups with eachother...I remember the first week before the 5vs5 started where I had to download patches or Sisi wasn't online.
|
FU22
The 8th Order
|
Posted - 2011.06.16 17:42:00 -
[46]
People are saying "omg let everyone who applies be in the tourny" but logically this can't happen, over a hundred teams applied didn't they?
I suggest bringing in seeding, the fact that Tyrrax Thorrk and his Dystopia Alliance didn't get in this time after being so entertaining in the past is actually ridiculous, Caldari blaster team anyone? (I'm sure a few other entertaining teams didn't get in either but Dystopia is the first I think of). Perhaps CCP + tourny experts can go over who has been in the tourny before and decide who can go through, maybe a limited number of teams who they feel add something to the tourny. Then they can let the cripples fight each other in a straight knock out qualifier round and those that get through can join the rest of the seeded teams.
Bring the rule that Ewar that makes fights boring (ECM, Damps, Tracking disruptors?) can only be fit to one ship like the Remote repairers rule, but make it so 2 ships can fit different ewar. So as an example you can have a Rook on your team with ECM AND a Lach with Sensor damps, but all of your team can fit as many Target painters,webifers,scrams etc as it likes. Probably reduce the points of Recons after this change as they will lose value. (Just a rough idea do not burn me too hard for this )
More ships/points?
Reduce points on battleships/flagships.
Allow teams to field as many of any ship they like but make the points cost raises slightly (Number increase to be decided by someone with their Mathematics skill trained higher then me )
I personally would like the size of the arena to be reduced, this will encourage less Caldari missle ***gotry and more BLASTERS OWNAGE, although Amarr will be victor but I reckon seeing loads of amarr is better then loads of Caldari, as Amarr will be mostly armour tanked thus slower which means more BLASTER OWNAGE. Alternatively make Tengus and drakes cost more points then their counterparts (Troll) .
And I just thought instead of making only one ship allowed to fit Remote repairers, how about limiting it to a select amount of Remote repairers? Think about it, if you can fit 4 RRs to whatever ships you like, what ships are flown with Remote reps? This might be a horrible idea but it makes me think we would see more Battleships which is always good right? RIGHT?
No doubt I will return to see what holes people have found with my ideas...
Also kil2 whens your next eve video out
Originally by: Millie Clode Dear santa, for christmas I would like an endless supply of noobs to march across my screen so I can pretend I'm playing duck hunt
|
Kagumichan
|
Posted - 2011.06.16 21:38:00 -
[47]
I like the idea of limiting remote reppers but allowing them to be on multiple ships, it'd make for some interesting setups in fact 'cos then you'd be able to put in a guardian but put your reppers on other ships and use the logi ship as bait, sure other ships wouldn't be as good as a logi ship for repping but you could tank out the guardian and it'd take a second for the opponents FC to realise his mistake, by then it could be too late.
Making the arena smaller sounds fun too, we'd see more Amarr and Gallente heavy teams and maybe even some lesser used weapon types (rockets anyone? :D). It'd make a nice change from the ranged caldari setups we see a lot lately and even ewar setups would struggle when their opponent is already in their face, and it'd make bomber setups more dangerous, so veteran AT teams would have to drastically rethink their more used and abused winning setups or make new ones.
Plus with a smaller arena there'd be a few more "oopsies" with boundary violations from the smaller faster ships like frigs and destroyers and make pilots concentrate more on getting into the thick of things, and it'd help stop Dramiels and Daredevils from doing Darius's fabled 'heroic orbit maneuver' :D
|
Helios Diaz
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
|
Posted - 2011.06.17 00:25:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Helios Diaz on 17/06/2011 00:26:07 I had this crazy thought about undershipping... what if you only fielded 90 points, and win the match. Let that team bring 1/2 the points to the next match. So... an extra 5 point bonus for their fleet to field if they want to.
This could lead to some unexpected events, and maybe the "static/standard/cookie cutter" fleets that we keep seeing would get a little crazier.
I can imagine some seriously crazy meta-gaming. You're in the quarterfinals and you get the other team to throw the match (in combat, not by a no-show), giving you a total of 150 points vs. PL on the other side. Now... the odds are a little more interesting.
Eve isn't balanced... why not knock the system out of a whack a bit.
|
Jaigar
|
Posted - 2011.06.17 00:58:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Helios Diaz Edited by: Helios Diaz on 17/06/2011 00:26:07 I had this crazy thought about undershipping... what if you only fielded 90 points, and win the match. Let that team bring 1/2 the points to the next match. So... an extra 5 point bonus for their fleet to field if they want to.
This could lead to some unexpected events, and maybe the "static/standard/cookie cutter" fleets that we keep seeing would get a little crazier.
I can imagine some seriously crazy meta-gaming. You're in the quarterfinals and you get the other team to throw the match (in combat, not by a no-show), giving you a total of 150 points vs. PL on the other side. Now... the odds are a little more interesting.
Eve isn't balanced... why not knock the system out of a whack a bit.
It would be incredibly easy to win the AT by paying someone off. Simply put, I could find someone to argee to throw the match in the quarterfinals in exhange for 20 or so runs of the reward ship + a few billion isk. 50 point potential advantage is way too signficant. You are basicly giving them 3 T3s for free. Not a good idea IMO.
Also, I thought EVE players understood that simple solutions are often the best....
|
Don Pellegrino
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2011.06.17 02:30:00 -
[50]
Top 8 or maybe even 16 from this year need to have a free pass for next year. We're missing out on some quality teams this year.
Make the arena 150km radius instead of 125km? ____________________________________________
|
|
Kagumichan
|
Posted - 2011.06.17 06:38:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Don Pellegrino Top 8 or maybe even 16 from this year need to have a free pass for next year. We're missing out on some quality teams this year.
Make the arena 150km radius instead of 125km?
Increasing the radius would only increase the amount of Caldari kite setups we see, Tengus already spend too much time in the spotlight, with a decreased radius we may begin to see Legions and more Proteus, with a better mix of ships all around.
|
Toterra
Lobster Exogalactic
|
Posted - 2011.06.17 17:14:00 -
[52]
I say for next tourney do either
1. Encourage frigates/T1 cruisers by reducing points to 75 per team or 2. Encourage Battleships by increasing points to 150 per team
Lest not have another tourney dominated by BC sized hulls and T2 cruisers. |
Alice Pink
|
Posted - 2011.06.18 05:41:00 -
[53]
Introduce stacking penalties for chip classes. Could be as simple as.
1st Recon :13 pts 2nd Recon :14 pts
And/or also:
1st Rook :13 pts 2nd Rook :15 pts
etc.
This will completely change the sorts of teams being fielded.
|
Ein Phantom
|
Posted - 2011.06.18 06:49:00 -
[54]
Originally by: veldftw how about making the ship points cost rise if u bring more than 1 of the ship.
1 sleip will cost 16 points the second will cost 18 points the third will cost 20 points
however u can still bring 1 sleip, 1 claymore and 1 nighthawk for 16 points each
For the love of everything entertaining, THIS
This idea has been repeated five times BY INDEPENDENT POSTERS in this thread alone.
<3
|
Patient 2428190
DEGRREE'Fo'FREE Internet Business School
|
Posted - 2011.06.18 09:13:00 -
[55]
Televise the 5 on 5. Televise every match
I'm sure you think its cute to have your experts and your staff play amateur TV anchorman, but I'd would be watching all the fights without any studio stuff or audio commentary over what we have now. Honestly, could care less, its about the fights.
Increase the Recon point value, the EAF point value and the Interdictor requirements
Decrease HAC, Tier 2 BC and Faction Battleship point requirements ...Then when you stopped to think about it. All you really said was Lalala. |
kloma
|
Posted - 2011.06.18 11:01:00 -
[56]
id like a random arena size (150, 100, 75, 50 radius)
i like the idea of repeating ships going up in cost as well, because it makes a lot of the other changes requested happen also, with things like rooks, tengus, sleips all being heavily repeated.
|
Sakura Nihil
Selective Pressure Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2011.06.18 13:18:00 -
[57]
Edited by: Sakura Nihil on 18/06/2011 13:19:02
My biggest wish is to bring faction cruisers and HACs back into favor in the tourney. In the past, we've seen a lot of use from cruisers like the Phantasm, Omen Navy Issue, and Vexor Navy Issue, in addition to HACs like Deimos, Ishtars, and Cerberus. Even the basic T1 cruiser, which has ridden to glory in the past, has been neglected this tournament.
My bonus wish would be to lessen the limit on having the same ship types, so that we could see 4 or 5 of the same ship, or even remove it altogether (preferable for me).
That said, I think ATX could benefit by being a slugfest, its gotten a bit too EW- and Logistic-focused lately.
PS: You don't have to televise every match, that's hard especially considering if the tourney expands to 128 teams competing someday. But at least let third parties, like EVE Radio, come on-site and broadcast the matches for us to hear. |
Ophey Won
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2011.06.18 13:34:00 -
[58]
Pre rank teams before the tournament. Even in the pre qualifiers. You could then match the stronger teams against weaker teams in early matches. I also think this would get rid of some of the meta gaming we see in matches.
|
Glasgow Dunlop
|
Posted - 2011.06.18 15:17:00 -
[59]
what about secondary teams being allowed in, so say your top 16 teams that get in already, and let the 2nd teams try and come thru the qualifiers :)
|
Thresh Avery
Best Path Inc. Cascade Imminent
|
Posted - 2011.06.18 22:19:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Ophey Won Pre rank teams before the tournament. Even in the pre qualifiers. You could then match the stronger teams against weaker teams in early matches. I also think this would get rid of some of the meta gaming we see in matches.
That's not a bad idea actually, but CCP may find it difficult or time-consuming to accurately rank teams from past tournaments.
For example, say Agony Empire got into AT X, how would you rank them? Their team could have changed a bit in the two years since they last competed, they did okay last time but better the time before that - how do you rate that amongst the other alliances?
I'm not sure how ranking the teams would prevent meta-gaming though, to be fair.
|
|
Drakprime
Caldari Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2011.06.18 22:32:00 -
[61]
I'd be interested in an IROC of EVE, each team (must) field ships from specific pool(s) equipped from specific pool(s). Perhaps a set pool (30 ships?) for the full tournament?
--- This, has what, to do with the price of Tea in D'ni? |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
|
Posted - 2011.06.18 22:35:00 -
[62]
I'd like to see larger groups and have some sort of wildcard scheme for advancement, which would mean fewer pointless matches. Groups should be ranked not by win/loss but by points. You already have a bonus to points for winning. I also would like to see the number of ships of the same class reduced down to 2, which should remove some of the ECM/Damping. Two step for CSM6 - http://twostep4csm.blogspot.com/ |
Chidori kun
Minmatar Starship Operating BastardZ
|
Posted - 2011.06.18 22:55:00 -
[63]
Edited by: Chidori kun on 18/06/2011 22:56:00 Edited by: Chidori kun on 18/06/2011 22:55:47 I see a lot of nice idea's floating around and can say some are great. But with one thing I agree Ewar, although I wil not say take it out because it's part of pvp some restrictions would be wise. Why? Because it's less a roll of the dice thing or who locks faster. This is the second tournament where some fights are pretty boring, lock down the logistics ship and it's a free for all.
I agree also do something about the points system make it possible to get some more ship classes in the mix. Because in the end somehow all teams end up doing the same thing.
A other thing what can mix things up a all out interceptor fight with no Ewar or any fast moving class but the idea is both teams show up in the same class and just slug it out and let the best team win :) But fiddling with the points would be a good start and restricting Ewar.
Chid.
|
Thresh Avery
Best Path Inc. Cascade Imminent
|
Posted - 2011.06.19 05:33:00 -
[64]
Originally by: veldftw how about making the ship points cost rise if u bring more than 1 of the ship.
1 sleip will cost 16 points the second will cost 18 points the third will cost 20 points
however u can still bring 1 sleip, 1 claymore and 1 nighthawk for 16 points each
This is a good idea for balancing out setups so that we may still see 3 Sleipnirs alongside a Minmatar rush whilst also being able to see a Sleipnir, Claymore and Nighthawk if teams feel that the point penalty isn't worth it.
My only concern is that it would discourage the use of a well-thought out setup due to repitition - which is obviously the point! But there's a downside. In a way it makes setups like the Minmatar rush still viable due to how powerful Sleipnirs and Sabres are, but it means we'll never see the likes of 3 Proteus, Dominix or Abaddons in a setup, whereas currently they are still viable for the points they cost.
The other thing is that it may make the smaller ships too expensive to field duplicates of as they initially cost much less. It's still a great idea but perhaps the rule should be expanded on?
Example rule:
Ships and Points
8. Fielding multiples of the same ship will increase the point value each time. This applies to specifically named ships only.
8a. Fielding more than one of the same ship that costs equal to or above 10 points (i.e. Tier 1 Battlecruisers and above) will incur an increasing point penalty of 2 each time - eg. 3 Rooks = 13 + 15 + 17.
8b. Fielding more than one of the same ship that costs less than 10 points (i.e. T1 Cruisers and below) will incur an increasing point penalty of 1 each time - eg. 3 Taranis = 3 + 4 + 5.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.06.19 08:15:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Thresh Avery ...My only concern is that it would discourage the use of a well-thought out setup due to repitition...
Afraid we are long past that. You mean repetition like half of all gangs being Matar rush teams and half of the remainder being Caldari spammer/kiter teams?
FoTY is so strong this time around that it even managed to dwarf the missile spammer setups that have been prevalent in previous tournies which is quite an achievement.
Escalating costs is a good idea to make people actually think about what they bring, but it shouldn't kick in from ship one but rather from ship two. Ships spammed are generally high dps birds so doing it at one will decrease viability of too many compositions.
|
Sollana
Amarr The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.06.19 11:18:00 -
[66]
Preliminaries 5vs5 T1 cruisers, frigates and destroyers No logistics Smaller arena
Group Stages 10vs10 No logistics, No Handicap win or lose Brawl NO EWAR
Finals 10 vs 10 Anything Goes, no restriction
No limit of number of ships or types of ships unless stated
|
The Great Leader
|
Posted - 2011.06.19 12:07:00 -
[67]
Edited by: The Great Leader on 19/06/2011 12:08:19 Keep the current format, however expand prequalifiers so that most applicants will get a chance to fight for a group stages slot. Give eight guaranteed slots to teams from last year and seed one in each group so we avoid the Group D situation from this year.
As for the rules, adjust the points for t3 up to 17 or 18. Pricing on both tech 1 and tech 2 battleships by tiers, Black Ops according to tier 1 BS and Marauders tier 2. Faction cruisers, HACs and HICs down by a point or two, logistics and recons up. No changes needed in the list of allowed modules, ships or implants.
|
GKO
|
Posted - 2011.06.19 12:08:00 -
[68]
Hey Kil2, nice work so far!
If you offer bpcs for the winner/ 2nd place like cruiser/frig bpc, let the winner choose which one he wants. No more intentional losses in finals because you are trying to get a cetaint prize.
|
daint666
Minmatar WEPRA CORP
|
Posted - 2011.06.19 12:30:00 -
[69]
-Remove all implants other than fitting implants. (we spent 3 billion on ships compared to 20 billion on silly implants) Most alliances don't have the money like PL to throw at the alliance tournament. This meant that we could less afford to change our setup and be inventive because players already had 3 billion of implants in their head.
-Its been said a few times, but i like the +2 points to every similar ship fielded rule (not class, this may force people to use different races)
-increase point cost for logi, T3s and destroyers. -decrease point cost for HAC, Faction cruisers to be the same as Tier1 BC
also, its been said before. 128 man instant knockout tournament sounds good, it'd prevent a lot of metagaming and promote the need to win the match.
|
Wyke Mossari
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.06.19 13:11:00 -
[70]
Delayed deployment.
Frigates arrive first, cruiser 30 seconds later, BS 1 min after start.
|
|
OnGrid
|
Posted - 2011.06.19 14:04:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Wyke Mossari
Delayed deployment.
Frigates arrive first, cruiser 30 seconds later, BS 1 min after start.
While a nice idea it shows you didn't read the OP. The tournament system does not allow for warp-ins after the match starts due to locking/camera mechanics...
This applies to several other posts in this thread as well.
It's kind of sad though, as it could be interesting to see. The "hold the control point" mechanic used at the PvP tournament at Fanfest this year was a lot of fun to play and watch. The only problem was non-existent camera control. This does not make for good television.
On topic, I like the idea proposed several times in this thread, of increasing points cost for a ship type when fielding more than one.
|
DaShmoo
Chrome On All Merchandise
|
Posted - 2011.06.19 14:42:00 -
[72]
the most "fair" way about doing things points wise is have EVERYTHING cost points. I'd hate to be the one figuring out the system, but like in Warhammer 40k, you pick armies by having a point limit, each type of unit has a point value and upgrades cost points.
Assign ECM's more points than a regular module if they're so OP (specially in 5v5).
This would allow you to assign every ship in the game a different point value.
this being said you probably would at that point go to a knockout style tourney and probably not use point values to determine things.
You'd see people using other ships probably enstead of the most OP for the point cost.
Maybe add more beacons? *shrug*
|
Rivulet
|
Posted - 2011.06.19 14:53:00 -
[73]
I would like to see the size of the engagements scaled up as the tournament progresses. It would be fairly easy to do this under the current system using pilot and point limits. For example, say the preliminary qualifiers have a 15 point limits and 5 pilot maximum. The small scale initially would be nice for a couple reasons: 1) we would get to see more frigs/cruisers used in non-filler roles (maybe even limit hulls to Tech 1 at first?) 2) the initial fights would probably not last as long and would allow for an increased starting pool--we might get to see the qualifying games on EVE TV if this were the case.
I see this escalating throughout the tournament, increasing points and number of pilots allowed, until the quarter/semi/final matches end up somewhere slightly above the current system (150 points, 12-ish pilots).
I think it would be cool to see the various strategies and setups that would arise from the escalating scale system, and it would also add to the novelty of the tournament, since it would be unlikely to see the same setup or type of setup on multiple days.
|
Starsaber 1
|
Posted - 2011.06.19 19:05:00 -
[74]
How about opening up what classes can be flagships? Maybe at least add Command Ships.
|
Wrayeth
EdgeGamers Situation Normal.
|
Posted - 2011.06.19 21:59:00 -
[75]
I mentioned this in another thread, but I'm pretty sure that one got buried somewhere.
I'd like to have the experts declare one ship the MvP of the tourney after evaluating all of the matches, then either disallow that ship in the next tourney or significantly increase that particular ship's points value. I believe this would result in more variation and innovation in the next tourney.
For my part, I'd have to call the sleipnir as the MvP in this tourney. It's really awesome to watch thanks to its speed, DPS and the awesome autocannon particle effects, but I got extremely tired of seeing it being fielded again and again and again. -Wrayeth --> Insert Useless Signature Here <-- |
Icylce
Frost Palace
|
Posted - 2011.06.19 22:02:00 -
[76]
1. Banning for throwing/selling matches 2. No prizes for winning teams whatsoever maybe only special medal from ccp for first 3 places
|
Cyno Zicke
|
Posted - 2011.06.19 22:03:00 -
[77]
BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!!
|
Kunthea Dara
|
Posted - 2011.06.19 22:06:00 -
[78]
In the final I think it should be a set fleet. So each team has the same ships and the same fits. This way it would be completely down to who were the better pilots and the better FC.
Would make things a little more interesting!
|
Faede Italh
|
Posted - 2011.06.19 22:06:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Wrayeth I mentioned this in another thread, but I'm pretty sure that one got buried somewhere.
I'd like to have the experts declare one ship the MvP of the tourney after evaluating all of the matches, then either disallow that ship in the next tourney or significantly increase that particular ship's points value. I believe this would result in more variation and innovation in the next tourney.
For my part, I'd have to call the sleipnir as the MvP in this tourney. It's really awesome to watch thanks to its speed, DPS and the awesome autocannon particle effects, but I got extremely tired of seeing it being fielded again and again and again.
+1
|
Chui Menta
|
Posted - 2011.06.19 22:06:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Cyno Zicke BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!! BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS ****ING **** FINAL!!!!!!!!
I thought I'd quote this because it's true.
|
|
Caellach Marellus
Nephtys Ventures inc
|
Posted - 2011.06.19 22:10:00 -
[81]
Have a cap as to how much E-War you can bring, a point cap/ship cap combine, this is internal to the overall points/ships cap that teams can field and is not an extra allocation. --------------------------------------
All commentary unless explicitly stated remains the personal views of Caellach Marellus and do not necessarily represent that of his Corporation or Alliance |
Naomi Knight
Amarr
|
Posted - 2011.06.19 22:10:00 -
[82]
prize : take every assets from at9 winners(+alts) + free podkills on all finalist until they go back to 1 sp
|
Richecko
|
Posted - 2011.06.19 22:20:00 -
[83]
Edited by: Richecko on 19/06/2011 22:20:36 I would ask CCP to have the dev's put some effort over the coming year to give the commentators a more detailed specialized info screen about the ship fittings, telemetry and the players skills & implants. As a player I learn a lot by listening to the commentary but often the commentators have to guess what modules or effects are being used by a team or player, how far away different ships are, whether someone's jammed etc... Their ability to tell the story of what's happening, and why, and if something new unique and clever is being done is limited by their current lack of real-time information.
Watching 2 years now, there is also no commentary about player skills ( skillbooks + levels ) and how that might influence or not-influence match results. Do the teams only send pilots with max skills or are skills a contributing factor -- we don't know.
|
Rgarcia
|
Posted - 2011.06.19 22:21:00 -
[84]
Here is a crazy idea, take the tourney serious instead of being selfish and screwing Eve and Eve promoters.
|
Phoenix Xterra
|
Posted - 2011.06.19 22:26:00 -
[85]
Rule #1 should be the removal of Kil2 from commentating. Having to listen to him whine about a match not being over yet is ridiculous. Having to listen to him whine while sitting between matches rolling his eyes at everything that CCP does needs to stop. CCP has a great team of commentators and fill in people, except for him. Use some professionalism. He doesn't even offer good analysis of what is happening.
|
Raynohr
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2011.06.19 22:26:00 -
[86]
bring back the big ships.
kinda boring to watch this round dominated by BCs.
|
Gordon McClaine
Caldari Mimidae Risk Solutions
|
Posted - 2011.06.19 22:28:00 -
[87]
Ban Alliances from participating that throw matches.
|
Annie Seko
|
Posted - 2011.06.19 22:32:00 -
[88]
Edited by: Annie Seko on 19/06/2011 22:32:57 How about simply not allowing the victory points to carry over from match to match and only be used to determine who winner of said match will be facing in the next round? Lowest scoring teams get dropped after each round and at the beginning of the next round everyone starts from zero again... Thus forcing them to fight if they want to move on.
|
Brett Lorenzo Favre
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.06.19 22:34:00 -
[89]
Stop the metagaming.
This is an official tournament where CCP SHOULD have control over the rules. In real life there are rules and a standard of sportsmanship teams adhere to in any type of real competition; you simply just don't throw a match in official events hosted by professional organizations. In EVE, sure, in normal everyday EVE you want to promote the idea of anything goes, but in a real officiated match, there needs to be rules and sportsmanship maintained.
|
Reilly Duvolle
|
Posted - 2011.06.19 22:42:00 -
[90]
Edited by: Reilly Duvolle on 19/06/2011 22:44:08 Basically I think we need to recognize that the arena tourney format is fundamentally different than the sandbox "normal" EVE format. Alliance tournaments showcase EVE online for new players and provide entertainment for tens of tousands of viewers. Alliances primarily participate to make a name for themselves and to get lots and lots of isk.
After the finals, I have become convinced that some of the metagaming going on really crashes violently with the entertainment part of the tourney. In short, watching rigged matches like 0utbreak vs Razor, Circle-of-two vs Wild Boars and ofc the finals with Hydra vs 0utbreak simply isnt good TV. The tourney isnt "real EVE". It isnt a sandbox. It is a arena format designed to showcase "FAIR FIGHT PVP". Basically its the same thing as the difference between WAR and SPORTS. In war, everything goes. Not so in sports.
The question is, how do you discourage that kind of behaviour? Well, the easiest solution is to replace isk and valuable ships with non-monetary prizes like a monument or something like that. That would leave e-honour as the primary goal for alliances, potentially reduce the investement some teams are now putting into winning the tourney and thus make poorer alliances able to compete, and not affect other parts of the metagame (spying etc).
|
|
Greniard
|
Posted - 2011.06.19 22:48:00 -
[91]
Originally by: Brett Lorenzo Favre Stop the metagaming.
How?
|
Herping yourDerp
|
Posted - 2011.06.19 22:48:00 -
[92]
in the point system each team can field 1 free ( point wise) tech 1 battleship
the flagship must be used during the final possibly allow the flagship to be the free battleship, but a free balghorn would probably be OP.
but in the teams we saw, instead of filling up slots with sabres and stuff, one of them being a scorp, or an ECCM rohk or something to that effect could change the tournament completely.
|
Thresh Avery
Best Path Inc. Cascade Imminent
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 02:24:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Originally by: Thresh Avery ...My only concern is that it would discourage the use of a well-thought out setup due to repitition...
Afraid we are long past that. You mean repetition like half of all gangs being Matar rush teams and half of the remainder being Caldari spammer/kiter teams?
FoTY is so strong this time around that it even managed to dwarf the missile spammer setups that have been prevalent in previous tournies which is quite an achievement.
Escalating costs is a good idea to make people actually think about what they bring, but it shouldn't kick in from ship one but rather from ship two. Ships spammed are generally high dps birds so doing it at one will decrease viability of too many compositions.
What i meant was that a well-thought out idea involving 3 Astartes (for example) may never be seen again due to the point penalty idea, however as it stands they are more viable. Having said that, it also means we may see less Minmatar rush teams, which would be a worthwhile outcome. As you know it's essentially a trade-off. I was just trying to point out the downsides.
I think if the points are re-balanced correctly - so making tier 1 bs 15 points, tier 2 bs 16 and tier 3 18, along with the other changes i stated in a previous post - and this penalty rule comes into play then there should be sufficient change to mix up the setups for next year. If the point penalty rule doesn't happen, then at the very least CCP should reduce the number of same ships from 3 to 2 again.
|
Veiam
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 02:42:00 -
[94]
Well since so many people are defending the final as a preoper way to play EVE. I say we have AT X in some place that the general public is allowed. Open up a single system in jove space just for the duration of the tournament so that everyone can really get the entire met-game of EVE going.
|
Portmanteau
CTRL-Q
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 02:52:00 -
[95]
maybe teams could be given a pool of ships to select from on the day. benefits would include seeing less minmatar setups :) seeing the players actual pvp skill rather than practiced counters to setups they already know they will face etc etc
|
Leskit
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 03:25:00 -
[96]
some thoughts:
in relation to point value, lower HAC cost raise Recons by 1-2 points...fewer ecm teams lower all battleship hulls by 1-2 points. raise T3 hulls by 1-2 points.
Have a sliding scale for the most popular fielded ships. Take the top 3-4 ships [those specific hulls] (Sleipnir, tengu, cyclone by this year's statistics at http://at.eve-ic.net/9/?view=statistics&tab=ships&sortby=fieldednr&order=desc&range=all and raise the point cost so we don't see the same setups each year. It was getting boring tuning in to see "another minmatar sleip team" or "another tengu team"
Do the opposite with the less fielded ships; take the bottom 10% and make them cheaper. Or maybe split the ship spread into fifths and take the second fifth [from the bottom up] and lower the point cost).
The overall effect would be to 'encourage' new setups instead of the tried-and-true (but getting boring) setups . I'd bet money on more amarr/gallente fights that way too. It's not as radical as it may sound, just changing points by 1-3 at a time to subtly influence things.
Something more radical and devious would be to allow 1 logistics and 1 t3 with logistics on it, possibly for additional points. That would be dastardly
|
Shegoba
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 04:10:00 -
[97]
You can juggle with ship point allocations all you like, the best teams are all going to come to roughly the same conclusion as to the best set ups, but put something in there they have to react to on the spot and see how they respond. Now that would be a true test of skill.
As much as we want this to be akin to a sporting event, it never can, or will be. EvE is to old now and relations are long and deep routed, thus the 'metagame'.
So maybe some form of sleeper AI or WH annomoly to mix things up abit across the arena.
|
Leskit
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 04:22:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Shegoba You can juggle with ship point allocations all you like, the best teams are all going to come to roughly the same conclusion as to the best set ups, but put something in there they have to react to on the spot and see how they respond. Now that would be a true test of skill.
Yeah, I can see that.
Originally by: Shegoba So maybe some form of sleeper AI or WH annomoly to mix things up abit across the arena.
Fighting in WH environments....now that would be an interesting test of skill! ...but would be contested as to the end of time as no way to make it even/level/fair across matches, it would be more based on luck. An armor team in a pulsar? yeah right...
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 04:32:00 -
[99]
Some thoughts: - The high number of boundary violations indicates the arena is too small for faster ships. This was true several years back and it remains true today. - Warp disruptors, dictors, and bubbles - essential parts of TQ PVP - are utterly meaningless. I suppose a big cause of this is that you would have to re-lock the enemy team as they warped in and out of the fight.
I contend that both of these problems can be solved by placing LCOs at each end of a very large grid-fu'd grid, and then using the watch list to keep track of everyone's health. On the plus side - it would be even more effective and foolproof than the lock system you're using now.
The problem then comes down to how to force people to fight and not waste everyone's time with Benny Hill antics as we saw a couple of tournaments ago. In that case, I think we'd be best off looking to FW style beacons with an extended "activation range".
I would also disagree with Mr. Rive's assertion that implants are effectively a non-issue, and would like to see pirate implants and deadspace modules allowed in the tournament for every pilot. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Neu Bastian
Minmatar CTRL-Q
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 05:46:00 -
[100]
Edited by: Neu Bastian on 20/06/2011 05:48:42 I like the idea that someone had a few post back, that'd it be awesome if the teams where given a pool of ships and mods shortly before the match to make their setups from.
Also T3's are kinda ubber in small gang and should cost more points.
Definitively add something about punishing those caught throwing matches. **** that "This is EVE" bull****, AT is about watching a good show, not conga lines and self destructs. Its boring enough when a team has gotten intel on what the other is gonna field and has a perfect counter
Quote:
Neu Bastian Murientor Tribe
|
|
Evlyna
Gallente Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 05:55:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Kil2
-It needs to be fun to watch!
That would kind of depend on your buddies not epically failing at the scenario they had to follow, huh?!
If there's any ATX (not that I would care), it should be player driven and prizes paid by the participants or a PLAYER/CORP/ALLIANCE sponsor from their pocket. Not by CCP.
CCP can enforces rules, gives arenas, etc., but they should not create Isks/ships anymore for something they will never control and making an alliance suddenly that rich with created Isk.
Don't remember the prizes of the first tournaments, but the prizes of the latest one is simply ridiculous. What will be the prizes of the ATXX at this rate?
It's a PVP tournament, not a lottery.
|
Father Fondle
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 06:10:00 -
[102]
Originally by: Evlyna It's a PVP tournament, not a lottery.
You got it right.
The reason why we got PL and Hydra (and prolly others) send several teams was the insane prizes.
I don't think that alliances would bother to put so much time and effort into metagaming either, if it wasn't for the monetary value of the tournament.
Get rid of the RL prizes and the zillion ISK prizes and BPCs ---> make the tournament real again.
|
Vaarun
Amarr Deus Imperiosus Acies
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 06:39:00 -
[103]
Originally by: Greniard
Originally by: Brett Lorenzo Favre Stop the metagaming.
How?
Easy.
You submit a lists of ships. That is your list of ships for the rest of the tournament. If a pilot cannot make it, someone can replace him in the exact same ship. Thsi is a test of how well you fly your ships and work together in combat. It's not about who will lose all their scruples to use inside info to defeat a specific opponent by tailoring ships and fits to beat them.
No substitutions means no chance for metagaming to enter into it. If you play the same ships with the same mods there is no way to swap things around. You enter you best team with your best strategy with allowed ships and take anything that comes along. This may also force the ECM to either go multispecs or multi-racial, either way reducing the effectiveness of ECM as they cannot "magically" pick all the right ECM for their next opponents.
Blind the brackets.
When coming in to a match, there are two opponenets you can fight. You won't know who until after you submit you final ships for that round. All 4 teams will be ready and then learn who they will fight when they take the field.
Metagaming is all about exploiting weaknesses ans strengths based upon information and adapt ships to deal with that. Take that away and we get ships that have to be fit to deal with anything. Besides, when you are on a roam, do you get a week to gather info and fit ships to counter who you meet?
I am unsure if the rules do it, now, but while you can bring 3 of one ship, the 2nd and 3rd of the same types should cost extra.
"To bring order to chaos, one must bring chaos to its knees."
-Vaarun |
Fred Barbossa
Free Mineral Collective
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 06:55:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Vaarun
Originally by: Greniard
Originally by: Brett Lorenzo Favre Stop the metagaming.
How?
Easy.
You submit a lists of ships. That is your list of ships for the rest of the tournament. If a pilot cannot make it, someone can replace him in the exact same ship.
You realize that metagaming is 99% knowing that list of ships rite?
|
Imryn Xaran
Caldari Coherent Light Enterprises
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 07:54:00 -
[105]
A few of the matches were decided by pilots accidentally going out of bounds. How about if instead of popping them for that they get jammed until they are back in bounds? That way they are penalised for their mistake (can't shoot and still taking damage) but it isn't necessarily so catastrophic that the team can't recover from it.
The other thing is metagaming. This goes on in all sports all the time, and is such a part of eve that it couldn't be eliminated even if they wanted to. The difference between AT and other sports is that nobody "in the know" talks about the metagaming. If CCP assigned a couple of people to activly spy on teams in game, if they offered in game rewards for information leaks, if they embedded reporters in each team camp, if they got panel experts who were more willing to talk about this, it might give the viewers more insight into the "behind the scenes" activities and thereby make it more interesting. I felt for you Kil2, knowing more than you could say and having to keep quiet, and perhaps it might be more interesting if they could find a non partisan expert to talk exclusively about the metagaming aspects, along with lots of juicy gossip and speculation, just as they do with real world sports.
|
Tappits
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 07:56:00 -
[106]
Get rid of logistic ships. Flag ships can be anything not just a BS. Lower Points for BS
---------------------------------------------- I fail At forums ٩๏̯͡๏)۶ |
Naomi Knight
Amarr
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 07:57:00 -
[107]
Originally by: Veiam Well since so many people are defending the final as a preoper way to play EVE. I say we have AT X in some place that the general public is allowed. Open up a single system in jove space just for the duration of the tournament so that everyone can really get the entire met-game of EVE going.
this , thou should be within jumprange
|
Kagumichan
Degenerate Corp Get Off My Lawn
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 08:10:00 -
[108]
Edited by: Kagumichan on 20/06/2011 08:10:33
Originally by: Neu Bastian Edited by: Neu Bastian on 20/06/2011 05:48:42 I like the idea that someone had a few post back, that'd it be awesome if the teams where given a pool of ships and mods shortly before the match to make their setups from.
Also T3's are kinda ubber in small gang and should cost more points.
Definitively add something about punishing those caught throwing matches. **** that "This is EVE" bull****, AT is about watching a good show, not conga lines and self destructs. Its boring enough when a team has gotten intel on what the other is gonna field and has a perfect counter
Problem with an idea like that, though it's a good idea, is small alliances and roleplay alliances may not have pilots with the required ship skills or weapon skills to be able to field a good setup. In doing so it pushes out those small alliances that want to take part and favours the larger alliances with a large amount of players in them. I like the idea though, it has potential, and with some work could spawn a good rule-set to stop these repeat setup teams, 'cos minmatar rush teams got old and stale real fast.
|
Tappits
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 08:30:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Quite a few ship costs need rebalancing but thats covered by other posters here nicely.
My main criticism/advise would be to ditch the pre-qualifier / group stuff and just run the whole show as a 128 team max knockout tournament out of the gate.
128 64 32 16 8 4 2
Just run it like the FA cup. Past winner and runner up automatically gets into the draw - otherwise allow 126 teams to put in a billion isk stake and just turn up and try their luck. If you have difficulty with televising of first round then so be it the 64v64 first weekend could be un-broadcast. But broadcast all the rest of the matches to the final.
This would as mentioned earlier in the thread remove some of the metagaming / fixed matches and return the tournament to a pure spectacle where the winner needs to win 7 straight matches - the maximum number of potential teams get to enter - and there is giant-killing opportunity for no-namers against the big boys from week 1.
I feel in recent years the focus on points manipulation and complicated pre-qualifying rounds have detracted from the pure spirit of the tournament which is "win your match".
I would like to see this. ---------------------------------------------- I fail At forums ٩๏̯͡๏)۶ |
Greniard
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 08:36:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Portmanteau maybe teams could be given a pool of ships to select from on the day. benefits would include seeing less minmatar setups :) seeing the players actual pvp skill rather than practiced counters to setups they already know they will face etc etc
By your logic, the less options there are, the harder those options are to counter... Well thought out.
|
|
Greniard
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 08:45:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Imryn Xaran A few of the matches were decided by pilots accidentally going out of bounds. How about if instead of popping them for that they get jammed until they are back in bounds? That way they are penalised for their mistake (can't shoot and still taking damage) but it isn't necessarily so catastrophic that the team can't recover from it.
How to win with these rules: alpha one enemy ship, burn away from opposing team into next grid so they can't shoot you, wait till time runs out. Great idea.
Quote:
The other thing is metagaming. This goes on in all sports all the time, and is such a part of eve that it couldn't be eliminated even if they wanted to. The difference between AT and other sports is that nobody "in the know" talks about the metagaming. If CCP assigned a couple of people to activly spy on teams in game, if they offered in game rewards for information leaks, if they embedded reporters in each team camp, if they got panel experts who were more willing to talk about this, it might give the viewers more insight into the "behind the scenes" activities and thereby make it more interesting. I felt for you Kil2, knowing more than you could say and having to keep quiet, and perhaps it might be more interesting if they could find a non partisan expert to talk exclusively about the metagaming aspects, along with lots of juicy gossip and speculation, just as they do with real world sports.
So team would just have to take agreements out of game. Damn. That would change everything! _
Also people who suggest for the ship pool and or setup be limited to one and only thing encourages metagaming even more, since if you know your opponents setup before the tournament you can counter them all you want. And it wouldn't do anything to fixed matches or putting more teams in, which is what everyone is actually whining about. Also how is it fair to force, say a player who's flown gallente for 8 years, to suddenly swap into minmatar?
|
Terianna Eri
Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 08:49:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Liang Nuren I would also disagree with Mr. Rive's assertion that implants are effectively a non-issue, and would like to see pirate implants and deadspace modules allowed in the tournament for every pilot.
I, too, would like to see teams that don't have the money to faction/deadspace fit every one of their ships to be at a huge disadvantage not only in the performance of similar setups but also in the lack of ability to field those setups that really rely on very expensive kit to operate.
Wait, no. That's one of the worst ideas I've ever read, and I spend a lot of time on the internet. I thought you were smart, Liang?
I do think that the hardwirings add very little to the tournament. They don't make substantial changes to the operation of your setups: A Sleipnir pilot with +5% hardwirings will fly the ship the same way they would with 3% or without implants. All they do is make it that much easier for larger, wealthier alliances to get an edge over smaller, less wealthy ones. If the best hardwirings were only 20-30 mil then it wouldn't be an issue, but a full set of +5% hardwirings for a Sleipnir costs something like 600 million - 2-3x as much as the hull + fittings, and it's way easier to swap out your ship than to swap out your implants. Also, because for any given setup there's rarely an important decision to be made about which implant should be put in a given slot, it's not like there's any interesting decisions when considering implants. It's as simple as "pay isk receive advantage."
There are other changes that could be made to improve the tournament in more substantial ways, but "no hardwirings except mindlinks" would be a good change, even if it would mean that I wouldn't be able to use my beloved +3% grid implants. ________________
Originally by: CCP Incognito PS the "time to P*nis" is the shortest time recorded in human history. :)
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 09:25:00 -
[113]
Originally by: Terianna Eri
Originally by: Liang Nuren I would also disagree with Mr. Rive's assertion that implants are effectively a non-issue, and would like to see pirate implants and deadspace modules allowed in the tournament for every pilot.
I, too, would like to see teams that don't have the money to faction/deadspace fit every one of their ships to be at a huge disadvantage not only in the performance of similar setups but also in the lack of ability to field those setups that really rely on very expensive kit to operate.
Wait, no. That's one of the worst ideas I've ever read, and I spend a lot of time on the internet. I thought you were smart, Liang?
A few comments: - While you can claim that 3% or 5% here and/or there doesn't make a difference, I would say you are RESOUNDINGLY incorrect because getting to your opponent 5% faster can mean landing a web 5% faster. Mixing percentages and absolutes will never "wash out" in the way you guys claim. - My small pirate corp can afford to buy T2/pirate ships and faction/deadspace fit them. Don't even tell me that alliances can't afford to splash a bit of faction in places that will make a difference. - Ultimately, the core problem is that the alliance tournament and TQ have diverged rather dramatically in ship capabilities because of silly restrictions like pirate implants and faction/deadspace modules. There are LOTS of cheap faction/deadspace modules too, and they make a world of difference in your fittings and effectiveness.
Quote: There are other changes that could be made to improve the tournament in more substantial ways, but "no hardwirings except mindlinks" would be a good change, even if it would mean that I wouldn't be able to use my beloved +3% grid implants.
That would actually be an example of a god awful ****ing ******ed change. Fitting implants are bog standard on damn near every fit I've seen fielded lately... and a change like that would do nothing but further divorce ships fielded in the alliance tournament from anything resembling what these ships can do on TQ.
I thought you were smart.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
flapie 2
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 09:44:00 -
[114]
Edited by: flapie 2 on 20/06/2011 09:47:21 1) Make sure only 1 alliance can enter (yes also check if they trained together to make a rigged match, check iff they dint split up on forehand etc, etc, etc, ban metagaming) 2) Do not allow anny matches to be sold out, bribed or annything of that kind and punish acordingly. 3) Lower the points on flag-ships, so we get to see these "awesome" ships a bit more. 4) Make the grid a bit bigger (50-75km), for some reason it feels so small, and seems so easy to scoot outside it with a kitting team. I think vieuwing the matches isnt a problem, tho the camera angels seem to be tho from time to time) 5) Battleships ...... hmmm there was a lack of this if you dont count the lolmatches (including the final) maybe lower point, im not really sure if it works but its worth a try. 6) Capitals i would like to keep this sorta open, maybe well someday see Capitals that are more "tournament fit" so to speak and its then more of a option to field them. But as they are now they are not "fun" to watch in match id agree on that.
The Tournament should be about pilot skills, not on how big your wallet or influance is. Witch sadly enough has been the case for several years now, even tho this new bracket sytem would have brought more "competetion" and "fun to watch" moments to the event. Sadly enough it kinda failed at it since some people get more joy out of metagaming.
I really hope someday the old style fights (You know the once we had around edition 1/2/3, the once i liked to watch) wil come back and no this push and pull politics and forum PvP. Until then ill keep an eye on changes, but i wont join the stream again untill it changed.
Just my 2isks.
*edit* maybe lowering the prices would be a good start to make metagaming less atractive.
|
Benedict Starkiller
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 09:46:00 -
[115]
There are some easy fixes to stop some of the blatant match throwing:-
1) A self-destruct loses the team points value of the ship lost as well as giving the opponent the same points as a kill. 2) A boundary violation loses the team points equal to the value of the ship destroyed. 3) CCP Adjudicator reviews matches and can ban teams blatantly fixing a match ( stops the final debacle as both would be disqualified and forfeit all prizes ). Teams will then need to think more creatively about how they throw a match so as not to get banned and ejected from the tournament.
|
Greniard
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 09:50:00 -
[116]
Originally by: flapie 2 1) Make sure only 1 alliance can enter (yes also check if they trained together to make a rigged match, check iff they dint split up on forehand etc, etc, etc, ban metagaming)
ok so they can't train together. Only share all possible intel. Makes a huge difference surely...
Quote: 2) Do not allow anny matches to be sold out, bribed or annything of that kind and punish acordingly.
So they just have to cover it up better. fixes the prob... no wait.
Quote: 3) Lower the points on flag-ships, so we get to see these "awesome" ships a bit more.
One good idea in your post! \o/ (altho sort of contradicts with your later statement that the tournament should be less about isk...)
Quote: 4) Make the grid a bit bigger (50-75km), for some reason it feels so small, and seems so easy to scoot outside it with a kitting team. I think vieuwing the matches isnt a problem, tho the camera angels seem to be tho from time to time)
and make kiting teams even more powerful :(
Quote: The Tournament should be about pilot skills, not on how big your wallet or influance is.
Beating all teams up to the finals with pilots split into two teams doesn't show that they have pilot skills? wtf?
|
Greniard
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 09:53:00 -
[117]
Edited by: Greniard on 20/06/2011 09:55:07 *removed* quoted from another thread and the response came here... cool.
|
Elayae
Gallente Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 10:00:00 -
[118]
Just an idea, nothing fancy. -introduce 2 bunkers, one for each team -the bunkers can be shot at giving points in some sort of formula to a team -the points gained from shooting the bunkers will be added to the ship points -points on the bunker can only be gained when a team has less then or an equal amount of ships in comparison to your opponent
|
Imryn Xaran
Caldari Coherent Light Enterprises
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 10:15:00 -
[119]
Originally by: Greniard How to win with these rules: alpha one enemy ship, burn away from opposing team into next grid so they can't shoot you, wait till time runs out. Great idea. Quote:
Guy who is out of bounds can still be shot, he just canÆt shoot back. Also, the pilot would be warned by the GM who is jamming him and if he didnÆt immediately turn back towards the in play area he would be popped.
Originally by: Greniard So team would just have to take agreements out of game. Damn. That would change everything!
Most already are. CCP actively encouraging 3rd parties to spy and report would be new, and might give the viewerÆs more insight into what is, or might be happening behind the scenes.
One other thing that is easily doable is to add a ôrequirement to fightö rule. Allow the GM who is refereeing the match to disqualify any team who, in his opinion, is not fighting to the best of their ability. It wouldnÆt eliminate thrown matches but it would get rid of travesties like conga lines and last nightÆs final.
|
flapie 2
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 10:19:00 -
[120]
Originally by: Greniard
Originally by: flapie 2 1) Make sure only 1 alliance can enter (yes also check if they trained together to make a rigged match, check iff they dint split up on forehand etc, etc, etc, ban metagaming)
ok so they can't train together. Only share all possible intel. Makes a huge difference surely...
Quote: 2) Do not allow anny matches to be sold out, bribed or annything of that kind and punish acordingly.
So they just have to cover it up better. fixes the prob... no wait.
Quote: 3) Lower the points on flag-ships, so we get to see these "awesome" ships a bit more.
One good idea in your post! \o/ (altho sort of contradicts with your later statement that the tournament should be less about isk...)
Quote: 4) Make the grid a bit bigger (50-75km), for some reason it feels so small, and seems so easy to scoot outside it with a kitting team. I think vieuwing the matches isnt a problem, tho the camera angels seem to be tho from time to time)
and make kiting teams even more powerful :(
Quote: The Tournament should be about pilot skills, not on how big your wallet or influance is.
Beating all teams up to the finals with pilots split into two teams doesn't show that they have pilot skills? wtf?
Post on you main or GTFO trolling this thread kktnxbb
|
|
Greniard
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 10:22:00 -
[121]
Originally by: flapie 2
Originally by: Greniard
Originally by: flapie 2 1) Make sure only 1 alliance can enter (yes also check if they trained together to make a rigged match, check iff they dint split up on forehand etc, etc, etc, ban metagaming)
ok so they can't train together. Only share all possible intel. Makes a huge difference surely...
Quote: 2) Do not allow anny matches to be sold out, bribed or annything of that kind and punish acordingly.
So they just have to cover it up better. fixes the prob... no wait.
Quote: 3) Lower the points on flag-ships, so we get to see these "awesome" ships a bit more.
One good idea in your post! \o/ (altho sort of contradicts with your later statement that the tournament should be less about isk...)
Quote: 4) Make the grid a bit bigger (50-75km), for some reason it feels so small, and seems so easy to scoot outside it with a kitting team. I think vieuwing the matches isnt a problem, tho the camera angels seem to be tho from time to time)
and make kiting teams even more powerful :(
Quote: The Tournament should be about pilot skills, not on how big your wallet or influance is.
Beating all teams up to the finals with pilots split into two teams doesn't show that they have pilot skills? wtf?
Post on you main or GTFO trolling this thread kktnxbb
No u!
Also not surprised you don't actually have any counter arguments. So just makes it even more fun for me. :)
|
El'Niaga
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 10:26:00 -
[122]
Edited by: El''Niaga on 20/06/2011 10:27:42 New format is what is needed, while it would not completely eliminate the metagaming it would reduce it and reduce the impact of it.
No more passes in prequalifyings. Everyone has to start from the start and make it to the finish.
Single elimination. You lose your out.
64 alliances battle (32 matches) 32 winners then battle (16 matches) 16 winners then battle (8 matches) 8 winners then battle (4 matches) 4 winners then battle (2 matches) 2 Winners then battle for Final ( 1 match)
63 matches total.
No more point jockeying so no more like in groups Razor and Outbreak positioning themselves by changing who they'll fight in brackets, in this style brackets you can't do that.
Set it up with North Division (includes Caldari Space), South Division (Amarr Space included), East Division (Minmatar Space included), and West Division (Gallante Space Included).
Empire alliances are in the division where the HQ of the executor corp was located at least 90 days prior to the tournament.
Wormhole alliances are randomly placed in a division.
0.0 alliances are in the division that relates to their sov space (or rented space). Those that could be one or the other may choose which division they are in.
16 teams in each division.
South fights East Division in one Semifinal (Eastern Champion fights Southern Champion...going along the old Minmatar vs Amarr rivalries)
North Fights West Division in second Semifinal (Caldari vs. Gallente old rivalries)
Basically it would like kinda like a NCAA tourney chart :).
(This format is also easily scaleable, you could start with 128 alliances or even 256)
|
flapie 2
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 10:28:00 -
[123]
Edited by: flapie 2 on 20/06/2011 10:30:11 Edited by: flapie 2 on 20/06/2011 10:29:23
Originally by: Greniard
Originally by: flapie 2
Originally by: Greniard
Originally by: flapie 2 1) Make sure only 1 alliance can enter (yes also check if they trained together to make a rigged match, check iff they dint split up on forehand etc, etc, etc, ban metagaming)
ok so they can't train together. Only share all possible intel. Makes a huge difference surely...
Quote: 2) Do not allow anny matches to be sold out, bribed or annything of that kind and punish acordingly.
So they just have to cover it up better. fixes the prob... no wait.
Quote: 3) Lower the points on flag-ships, so we get to see these "awesome" ships a bit more.
One good idea in your post! \o/ (altho sort of contradicts with your later statement that the tournament should be less about isk...)
Quote: 4) Make the grid a bit bigger (50-75km), for some reason it feels so small, and seems so easy to scoot outside it with a kitting team. I think vieuwing the matches isnt a problem, tho the camera angels seem to be tho from time to time)
and make kiting teams even more powerful :(
Quote: The Tournament should be about pilot skills, not on how big your wallet or influance is.
Beating all teams up to the finals with pilots split into two teams doesn't show that they have pilot skills? wtf?
Post on you main or GTFO trolling this thread kktnxbb
No u!
Also not surprised you don't actually have any counter arguments. So just makes it even more fun for me. :)
A second so orginal reply, you must be studying at some really important college. Im not afraid to not explain something to you btw, nor do i have to.
*edit* damn that typo*
|
Kagumichan
Degenerate Corp Get Off My Lawn
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 10:29:00 -
[124]
Go back to limiting the amount of ship types allowed in each team \o/
Then we'll see more battleships and less of these Sleipner/Cyclone heavy minnie rush teams.
|
Greniard
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 10:40:00 -
[125]
Originally by: flapie 2 Im not afraid to not explain something to you btw, nor do i have to. *stupid pyramid limits*
Of course you don't. That'd be silly. I was just hoping you would put some effort into your reply like I did.
|
TheGunslinger42
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 10:47:00 -
[126]
Do something to stop boring 3 rook 3 kitsune teams. I'd also like to see a bit more from battleships, rather than 3 bc hulls being nearly always a better choice
|
flapie 2
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 10:47:00 -
[127]
Originally by: Greniard
Originally by: flapie 2 Im not afraid to not explain something to you btw, nor do i have to. *stupid pyramid limits*
Of course you don't. That'd be silly. I was just hoping you would put some effort into your reply like I did.
Iff there was a good point to the effort then maybe yes.
|
Nehaj
Amarr
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 11:36:00 -
[128]
Only the winner should win the prizes. But to do so, they should face Team CCP.
And if Team CCP wins, they distribute the ships to the plebs, via lottery or some such.
|
Glasgow Dunlop
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 12:04:00 -
[129]
Here By My Suggestions:
1) Allow 'B' Teams : Hydra & Overlord ( I Think? ) were in the finals and trained together, so what, there going to split the stuff in the end? So why not let there be 2 entrance for each rather than 1, the way it would be set up is that the 'b' teams would have a separate pool to get in the group stages, to allow the other alliances a fair shot if they only want one team in, so if the top 16 come back next year, 4 slots can go to the 'b' teams, trying to keep them away from the 'a's during the group stage.
2) Flasgships: Whats the point of having a FS if its not on show in the arena? FS must be flown in every match, thou to help things out with diffrent set-ups the could be given AT mods that give certain extra bounes to fleet fights.
3) Point Penalties: Have a handicap system were the more of certain ships have a increase of 2-4 points (T2 & T3 Only)
4) Comedy Set-ups Match: This should be done as either a preview or warm-up for big matches, invite back some of the fallen allainces, and instead of points per ships, points per module, IE depending on the metalevel is the points they have to spend, and cetian ships must be brought, likes badgers, hulks, rookie ships ect ect.
|
Annie Seko
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 06:35:00 -
[130]
Here is a thought....
Require that Alliances be more than 6 months old and that all the corps of the competing pilots are part of that alliance for at least 6 months just as pilots are required to be a member of a corp for 6 months prior to the Tournament.
Outbreak Corp split off from Hydra Reloaded Alliance on 4/28/2011 and joined the new Outbreak. alliance that was created on 05/01/2011. Pretty obvious Hydra Reloaded basically had two teams in the tournament.
|
|
Ludacrys
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 12:14:00 -
[131]
5v5 stages sucked, get rid of them
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 12:59:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Ludacrys 5v5 stages sucked, get rid of them
The footage that was made by participants says otherwise, some of the best fights in the entire tournament were 5v5 and not officially broadcast.
If meta-gaming is really to be the alpha/omega of Eve then let the tournament show it by officially supporting it. - Semifinals and final are removed and replaced with a single 20 minute fight with the remaining 4 teams. Last man standing gets 1st place, last team to be killed gets 2nd place etc.
Have prizes be an either/or thing. Winners can chose to take the cash or to have a memorial erected for posterity .. time we put a price on e-peen since that is supposedly why the 1337-PvP'ers even participate.
|
Melfina Rayne
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 13:11:00 -
[133]
Allow ONLY flagships the ability to warpin to match after its started and ONLY after one of the ships of there team has been destroyed.
that way teams would thinkn twice about killing a frig for example.Making them afriad of a flagship coming to the teams rescue.
|
Tsal V'eech
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 13:33:00 -
[134]
I think the main and only real issue with the current format from a viewer perspective is that it inevitably favours one race and setup over all others, which can make for some very dull and predictable matches. The setup and race in question of course being the Battlecruiser-heavy Minmitar team.
So how about introducing a simple racial quota for each stage of the tournament (i.e. 3 matches in the group stage / 3 in the elimination stage / final match) so that each team can only field as many ships of each race per stage as the maximum allowable number of ships on a team. In other words if you're allowed 10 ships in a match then you can field 10 ships from each race across the 3 matches of each stage, then whatever you like in the final match. So you CAN field a full Minmitar team, but then for the remaining 2 matches of that stage of the tourney you can't field any more Minmitar ships.
I think this would make for a FAR wider variety of racial setups, forcing teams to choose between mixing races in a match or opting for the single race setup, but then obviously having to field 3 different single race setups from 3 different races. All of which would make for much more interesting and unpredictable matches for us to watch and you to commentate on!
It would also introduce a whole new fun-loving level of metagaming complexity to the tournament. Since the same setups will still be the most effective the team leaders are now in a position of having to decide against which team they want to deploy their most effective setup, which will make for some entertaining dilemmas, especially in the elimination stage. Spying, double-dealing and backstabbing will never have been so important!
I think this rule could also level the playing field somewhat and make for some of those great, cruel 'EVE' situations, where perhaps the tournament favourites are up against a much weaker opponent but find themselves outclassed in ship types. Do they succumb to the cold, brutal statistics of DPS or can pilot skill triumph? The opportunity for crushing, unexpected defeats and heroic against-the-odds victories is increased, that has got to make for better viewing.
In summary: a simple racial quota could dramatically shake up the ship combinations being fielded, add a whole new level of challenging complexity for the pilots and make for an unpredictable, exciting viewing experience!
|
Poetic Stanziel
Gallente EVE University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 14:09:00 -
[135]
1. Drop battleship point cost by two points.
2. So that we don't see the same damned four set-ups from the top teams over and over, add +1 points to the cost of any ship if it is Minmatar or Caldari.
3. The easy fix to the tournament, and one that would eliminate most meta-gaming (i.e. fixing of matches and joke setups) would be to switch to a single elimination system. The group stage winners from the previous year are seeded deeper into the match tree.
Basically, lose a match, you are immediately out of the tournament. Every fight is important, every fight you have to bring your best.
Sure, some teams may buy wins (advancement), but I think that sort of metagaming would not be common (except perhaps at the very early stages) ... the deeper you get into the tournament, the more serious the teams are, the less likely they can be bought off.
3a. All the teams that made it to the Group Stage in a previous year would be seeded later into the tournament.
So, you might have 64 teams on the first two days, 32 teams on the third day, on the 4th day the remaining 16 teams plus the 16 teams from the previous year's group stage (so 32 teams) would be pitted against each other, on day 5 the remaining 16 teams, and on day 6 you have 8 teams, then 4, then 2, then the winner.
4. Have five judges ... if a majority rule that there was match fixing, both teams are disqualified. Joke setups and what happened in the final are hard to argue as being anything other than what they were.
|
Poetic Stanziel
Gallente EVE University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 14:12:00 -
[136]
Originally by: El'Niaga
Single elimination. You lose your out.
64 alliances battle (32 matches) 32 winners then battle (16 matches) 16 winners then battle (8 matches) 8 winners then battle (4 matches) 4 winners then battle (2 matches) 2 Winners then battle for Final ( 1 match)
The winners that got to the previous year's group stage (or the final 16 of the previous year), are seeded into the tournament at a later date. Therefore,
64 alliances battle (32 matches) 32 winners then battle (16 matches) 16 winners + 16 winners from previous year then battle (16 matches) 16 winners then battle (8 matches) 8 winners then battle (4 matches) 4 winners then battle (2 matches) 2 Winners then battle for Final ( 1 match)
|
Maraleith
Gallente Metalstorm Inc.
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 16:10:00 -
[137]
Knockout tournament replacing round robin is one definite change. That makes metagaming such as what we saw much more riskier because you lose your out. Yes you can buy the other side off but if they betray you what can you say .....
Battleships need to be brought back into the 10 man fleet through lower points. And I want to see more variety in ships being used so adjustment in ship points need to occur.
I was thinking of having two classes of competition; a small ships type class where only t1 cruisers and below can be used with one logistics ship while the open class is for all types of ships.
As for the metagaming in the final; CCP is hoist on its own petard. It supports and condones metagaming so please don't complain when it humiliates you in front of the world.
|
Edenmain
Euphoria Released HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 16:34:00 -
[138]
Originally by: flapie 2 Edited by: flapie 2 on 20/06/2011 09:47:21 1) Make sure only 1 alliance can enter (yes also check if they trained together to make a rigged match, check iff they dint split up on forehand etc, etc, etc, ban metagaming) 2) Do not allow anny matches to be sold out, bribed or annything of that kind and punish acordingly. 3) Lower the points on flag-ships, so we get to see these "awesome" ships a bit more. 4) Make the grid a bit bigger (50-75km), for some reason it feels so small, and seems so easy to scoot outside it with a kitting team. I think vieuwing the matches isnt a problem, tho the camera angels seem to be tho from time to time) 5) Battleships ...... hmmm there was a lack of this if you dont count the lolmatches (including the final) maybe lower point, im not really sure if it works but its worth a try. 6) Capitals i would like to keep this sorta open, maybe well someday see Capitals that are more "tournament fit" so to speak and its then more of a option to field them. But as they are now they are not "fun" to watch in match id agree on that.
The Tournament should be about pilot skills, not on how big your wallet or influance is. Witch sadly enough has been the case for several years now, even tho this new bracket sytem would have brought more "competetion" and "fun to watch" moments to the event. Sadly enough it kinda failed at it since some people get more joy out of metagaming.
I really hope someday the old style fights (You know the once we had around edition 1/2/3, the once i liked to watch) wil come back and no this push and pull politics and forum PvP. Until then ill keep an eye on changes, but i wont join the stream again untill it changed.
Just my 2isks.
*edit* maybe lowering the prices would be a good start to make metagaming less atractive.
All of this is impossible to enforce, we could still do exactly the same and just work more on the final match.
The only thing I can think of is having blind matches where you don't know who you are fighting untill you enter the arena.
For example 8 teams get a start time, (you will obviously know to within 7 teams who you are fighting) get your ships get transported and warp in and then you will see who you face.
Obviously quarter and semi-finals will have a 25% cahnce and 50% chance of knowing who but It should be irrelevent by then.
I don't think there is much wrong with the tourney as it is obviously people didn't like the final match but the semi's were intense.
I think the fact that people are using the arguement about the free to enter prize draw being affected shows that they can't really find any fault with what actually went on.
|
Herping yourDerp
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 18:03:00 -
[139]
i'd like to see cruiser/frigs/battleships more relevant. t1 frigs were rare at best i think i saw 1 cruiser. battleships when seen usually died. raise t2/3 ship points lower t1 ship point cost.
or like i said before, change the way the tournament works, if every team gets a battleship no matter what regardless of points it could be more fun, immagine a free battleship loaded with ECCM and stuff to combat ecm teams. or a pulse fitted apoc to hit the kite teams ecm scorpion? i mean it would be a battleship and their biggest issue is slow and point cost so no one uses them, if the point cost is 0 or like 2 for only 1 ship it would change for the better.
|
Reilly Duvolle
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 18:16:00 -
[140]
1. Remove most monetary rewards. A trillion+ isk (the value of the first prize) is a large enough sum to be able to directly influence TQ power politics and this encourages player behaviour we should try to keep out of the AT. Use "E-honour" rewards like monuments, public medals/decorations, diplomas for the CQ and/or vanity items (special paintjobs on ships, clothing etc etc - use your imagination)
2. Use a 64 or 128 team single match elimination format. No point system. Win or loose. 128 teams would need 4 weekends (16 matches per day), og which the round of 128 (the first 2 weekends) could be conducted with or without EVE TV coverage. Tie-breaker rule = extension with sudden death.
3. Participation in ATX should be by CCP invitation only. Criteria for invitation: Top 4 or 8 last years tourney or top 64/128 alliances on Battleclinic or EVE-kill starting from the end of last years tourney, and which are still active at the time of invitation (a 3 toon holder corp will not be considered "active"). Reserves will be invited if alliances on the list decline the invitation.
4. Only characters in the alliance at the date of invitation should be eligible to participate.
Effect: The use of last minute formed "sleeping" or "alt" alliances should stop. Only alliances with demonstrated PVP skill the last year will be invited. Little/no incentive to rig matches for isk or any other reason.
|
|
Edenmain
Euphoria Released HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 23:09:00 -
[141]
Originally by: Reilly Duvolle Edited by: Reilly Duvolle on 21/06/2011 18:33:44 1. Remove most monetary rewards. A trillion+ isk (the value of the first prize) is a large enough sum to be able to directly influence TQ power politics and this encourages player behaviour we should try to keep out of the AT. Use "E-honour" rewards like monuments, public medals/decorations, diplomas for the CQ and/or vanity items (special paintjobs on ships, clothing etc etc - use your imagination)
Effect: The use of last minute formed "sleeping" or "alt" alliances should stop. Only alliances with demonstrated PVP skill the last year will be invited. Little/no incentive to rig matches for isk or any other reason.
You wouldn't get the best teams, the input from teams, the background prep, fights that meant anything. People wouldn't be bothered if it didn't mean anything.
|
Time Funnel
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 23:27:00 -
[142]
Edited by: Time Funnel on 21/06/2011 23:27:41
Originally by: Shamis Orzoz
The only way to see more lasers and more blasters would be to lower the point cost of gallente and amarr would be to fine tune the points PER SHIP. Something like: brutix 9 points cyclone 10 points harbinger 12 points hurricane 13 points sleipnir 16 points abso 15 points etc
The rules I think are pretty good but ship balance could be improved.
IDEA - The least used ships (by race and or by class) get point reductions for the following AT. The most used get point increases. Once someone balances them they can get back to their normal points.
It will quickly become obvious what needs to be balanced. The balancing team can use that information on where to look where to balance. If a ship class is underused they can buff it. If an entire race's cruiser line is unused they can look to improve it.
Edit: and some sort of ghetto coverage for the prelims.
|
Anton Rowan
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 06:57:00 -
[143]
How about each team can only have a pre-selected number of ships for each round (using whatever points scores/ship restrictions deemed appropriate).
So for instance, a team has 250 points available to select of pool of ships to be used in the next round of fights, limited to 3 of any ship type.
If they lose some ships in the first fight then they are lost from the pool and so can not be used in the selection of the team for the next fight.
This way a every ship destroyed could be a severe blow to the team and might mean they have to think on the fly about tactics.
|
Terianna Eri
Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 10:49:00 -
[144]
Edited by: Terianna Eri on 22/06/2011 10:52:56
Originally by: Liang Nuren words and stuff
That's very nice that you can afford to faction-deadspace fit every single one of your ships for all the matches you could ever care to do. Good for you. It's cute that you think that people will only shell out where it matters the most instead of spending as much as they can afford.
Contrary to what you think, not every group of players has the same resource base, and imposing a harsher restriction of "you must have this much isk to participate competitively" is not good for the tournament or the game in general.
As for implants, yes, slight changes in stats can make big differences. What's your point? Faction damage mods, faction MWDs, faction resist mods all have slight increases that could lead to big results and they're not allowed in the tournament. All implants do is provide another way for wealthier players to get an easy advantage.
Maybe you're okay with that, in which case you have no opinions worth listening to anyway .
If you're going to allow faction and deadspace fittings on everything, fine, allow all the implants you want . But since that's a fantastically stupid idea, and implants are basically equivalent to some faction gear ("pay a lot more for a slight advantage"), there's not much sense in allowing implants that do the same thing.
P.S. I expected better from you than a glorified "no, you're stupid" ________________
Originally by: CCP Incognito PS the "time to P*nis" is the shortest time recorded in human history. :)
|
Electra GaafCramo
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 11:49:00 -
[145]
My first suggestion is that you, kil2, stay the hell away from Iceland next year. You were a complete disgrace in the final.
|
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 13:01:00 -
[146]
Originally by: Edenmain You wouldn't get the best teams, the input from teams, the background prep, fights that meant anything. People wouldn't be bothered if it didn't mean anything.
Dont know about you but I'd rather have players whose motivation isnt pure greed, that way theres more common incentive to make it a fair and decent fight rather than a win at all costs cluster**** like it is now. But again this comes back to what the tournament is meant to be, and only ccp can can decide that.
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sig.php |
El'Niaga
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 14:42:00 -
[147]
Originally by: Poetic Stanziel Edited by: Poetic Stanziel on 21/06/2011 16:27:31
Originally by: El'Niaga
Single elimination. You lose your out.
64 alliances battle (32 matches) 32 winners then battle (16 matches) 16 winners then battle (8 matches) 8 winners then battle (4 matches) 4 winners then battle (2 matches) 2 Winners then battle for Final ( 1 match)
The winners that got to the previous year's group stage (or the final 16 of the previous year), are seeded into the tournament at a later date. Therefore,
64 alliances battle (32 matches) 32 winners then battle (16 matches) 16 winners + top 16 alliances from previous year then battle (16 matches) 16 winners then battle (8 matches) 8 winners then battle (4 matches) 4 winners then battle (2 matches) 2 Winners then battle for Final ( 1 match)
I don't think anyone should get a free pass, everyone starts at the beginning. It is the only way to really prevent metagaming. Like you point out some might still throw a match but without jokeying for position in the current system you'd eliminate most metagaming. If you allow passes then you interduce metagaming into the equation as folks will make deals one year to be in it the next year.
|
Reilly Duvolle
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 15:13:00 -
[148]
Originally by: Edenmain
You wouldn't get the best teams, the input from teams, the background prep, fights that meant anything. People wouldn't be bothered if it didn't mean anything.
History tells differently. The insane monetary prizes was there in AT 1-3 and then again from AT7 onwards. The torneys in between had mostly vanity prices. So star fraction vs BOB (AT4) wasnt good enough for you? or PL vs RUR (AT6)?. Sorry dude, but you are wrong. maybe HYDRA wouldnt compete. To bad, but I can live with that.
|
Fewell
|
Posted - 2011.06.23 11:08:00 -
[149]
I havn't read the entire thread so forgive me if this is not original content. 1st Place=Cruiser Blueprints 3rd Place=Frigate Blueprints 2nd Place won the chance to fight for blueprints but failed, same for fourth. you'd have to have another match, between the last two teams that didn't make the finals, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. This should lead to gf's in the last two matches. You won't stop metagaming between two alliances that are very tight, but for others, who would you trust enough to take a fall for half the prize ships and believe they'd hand them over? |
Ghostwind
Gallente Dead Skin Mask
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 06:57:00 -
[150]
Make sure every participant can practice in peace. Maybe a dimensional pocket for each locked with password. Team members could still leak information though, but it would provide better options for everyone to keep their strategies safeguarded. And less hassle for those that have chosen the worm hole option in this tournament. Not to mention that spies would get a much less load on their backs.
|
|
Bubba Lafayette
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 17:35:00 -
[151]
Originally by: Edenmain
Originally by: Reilly Duvolle Edited by: Reilly Duvolle on 21/06/2011 18:33:44 1. Remove most monetary rewards. A trillion+ isk (the value of the first prize) is a large enough sum to be able to directly influence TQ power politics and this encourages player behaviour we should try to keep out of the AT. Use "E-honour" rewards like monuments, public medals/decorations, diplomas for the CQ and/or vanity items (special paintjobs on ships, clothing etc etc - use your imagination)
Effect: The use of last minute formed "sleeping" or "alt" alliances should stop. Only alliances with demonstrated PVP skill the last year will be invited. Little/no incentive to rig matches for isk or any other reason.
You wouldn't get the best teams, the input from teams, the background prep, fights that meant anything. People wouldn't be bothered if it didn't mean anything.
How can you say that? The 'best' teams have just given us the most boring and pathetic final in AT history. Duh! E-honor is a great idea. Let your efforts stand in EVE forever with monuments or ships named after you...much cooler, money means jack to you guys anyway. Just sell more moon goo if u want isk.
|
The Monkeysphere
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 19:22:00 -
[152]
Imo they should open this up properly to bigger alliances and make the 10 man teams into 100 man teams so it's about actual skill and not just luck and metagaming. Each side should be allowed up to 10 supercapitals too but tbh that should be up for debate.
The point layout should be so that you can bring at least 50 battleships, and they should increase the arena size too. It's an alliance tournament, it shouldn't be just about the skills of one guy who came up with the 8-10 man gang composition, it should be about the skills of individual fleet pilots too.
|
Thresh Avery
Best Path Inc. Cascade Imminent
|
Posted - 2011.06.25 03:16:00 -
[153]
Originally by: Fewell I havn't read the entire thread so forgive me if this is not original content. 1st Place=Cruiser Blueprints 3rd Place=Frigate Blueprints 2nd Place won the chance to fight for blueprints but failed, same for fourth. you'd have to have another match, between the last two teams that didn't make the finals, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. This should lead to gf's in the last two matches. You won't stop metagaming between two alliances that are very tight, but for others, who would you trust enough to take a fall for half the prize ships and believe they'd hand them over?
All this would do is improve those alliances that metagame to do it more effectively and not let any other alliances have the same pleasure. It's just rewarding the teams that currently metagame very well.
The only thing that would happen (if this year's tournament was used as an example) is that Outbreak would have attempted to get on the same side as Hydra if they knew they would meet in the semi-final, then one would forfeit for the other so they both had a chance of winning the prizes.
If they knew they may not face each other in the semi-final, then Outbreak would have beaten Razor to top the group, gone for the victory in the knockout stages and depending on whether the first of the two alliances to fight won their semi or not, the other would act accordingly to avoid facing them and secure a chance to win the other prizes: eg. Hydra fights first and wins, so Outbreak would set the self-destruct timer on their ships during the 1 minute countdown to reach the 3rd place playoff.
Originally by: Melfina Rayne Allow ONLY flagships the ability to warpin to match after its started and ONLY after one of the ships of there team has been destroyed.
that way teams would thinkn twice about killing a frig for example.Making them afriad of a flagship coming to the teams rescue.
Originally by: Ghostwind Maybe tag-teaming from a pool of ten, during the match could be an option. Once a member gets taken out, another replaces him. Once a team has no members left in the pool they have lost the fight. 5 vs 5 could be appropriate. This could turn fights up side down by bringing a new ship to the field.
A lot of people here aren't reading the OP. It states that players cannot warp-in during the fight because the camera ships have to stay cloaked so they don't interfere on the overview. This means they can't lock the new ships appearing on the field and would make viewing the fight confusing.
|
Ghostwind
Gallente Dead Skin Mask
|
Posted - 2011.06.25 23:49:00 -
[154]
Quote: A lot of people here aren't reading the OP. It states that players cannot warp-in during the fight because the camera ships have to stay cloaked so they don't interfere on the overview. This means they can't lock the new ships appearing on the field and would make viewing the fight confusing.
Right you are. Shame, because it would make matches much less predictable.
|
LordElfa
Gallente Golden Lyon Warriors
|
Posted - 2011.06.26 18:17:00 -
[155]
Get rid of logistics and ewar ships.
Make the entire thing combat only. When you want to watch a gladiator match, you don't want to see a doctor run in the middle and stat bandaging folks up or some little guy run in and kick sand in a guy's face and run out again.
Also, No more drones!!! Drones make it complicated to follow the action and just get in the way.
òòòòòòò CSM6-Hated by fools for who they are; Loved by the knowledgeable for what they will do. |
aetherguy881
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.06.26 20:53:00 -
[156]
Broadcast all matches. ------------------- Always remember this about EVE:
Life is cheap, or 15 bucks a month. |
Amber Saint
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2011.06.26 22:06:00 -
[157]
Originally by: LordElfa Get rid of logistics and ewar ships.
Make the entire thing combat only. When you want to watch a gladiator match, you don't want to see a doctor run in the middle and stat bandaging folks up or some little guy run in and kick sand in a guy's face and run out again.
Also, No more drones!!! Drones make it complicated to follow the action and just get in the way.
yes m8
Garmonation 7 - A Pure pvp movie |
Ashley Judd
|
Posted - 2011.06.27 02:49:00 -
[158]
Originally by: LordElfa you don't want to see a doctor run in the middle and stat bandaging folks up or some little guy run in and kick sand in a guy's face and run out again.
I actually do want to see a doctor do that. That's one baller doctor.
|
Shani Mangetsu
|
Posted - 2011.06.29 11:39:00 -
[159]
Each players entry into the tournament should be 500 USD in RL cash.
Winning team takes it all.
No ingame prize, No uniqe ships. No isk. |
SwindonBadger
0utbreak Outbreak.
|
Posted - 2011.06.29 15:27:00 -
[160]
Cool tourney btw, had to watch it all away from home :( very good comentating and think shadoo was good too! at least was nice to see the reaction with u guys and PL/ Hydra
I think ill not update my silly thred and just paste here where I got to..
1. eve tv for all fights ....... 2. a new rule to advance game play (this years was shot down) 3. 5 man qualifier ? 4.. Jamming like never before , should we look at jamming hi slots mids lows instead of lock as example to spice it up/? 5, How to stop the final being so lame ( steel garmons mums bras ect ect before fight and put them on our heads like Robert Downey Jy in wierd Science)?
ps , duncan cant stop ever.
Eat Them all, let the digestion sort em out |
|
Vynel Mortes
|
Posted - 2011.07.05 17:19:00 -
[161]
The area that i can see an opportunity with the aliance tournament would be a weekly league type set up with 4 divisions, make a smaller cost to enter with a larger number of teams allowed to participate.
Take the top 8-10 teams from each division to do the alliance tournament. That way your not just getting those that are the best on a given weekend or 3 but a more consistant picture of the teams that are involved.
Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page] |