Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 13 post(s) |
Waragha
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.05.22 20:53:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Waragha on 22/05/2007 20:54:48 These rules are extremely random.
250 km range with random warp in beacons equals starting positions of up to 200km apart. Heck you might even land on top of each others. Long range setups ? What if you are up against a nanofag team? Nanofag team vs. tanked / closerange? This plus the allowed ECM will pretty much make this the most random tourny yet. It wont be about who comes up with the most "globablly" valid tactics it will be who pulls the longest straw most times.
Some other interesting pointers: People complain that pirate implants are too expensive in tourny (not a problem for myself though) - You allow podding w. a 250km warp bubble.
People dislike the randomness of ECM - You allow ECM.
I don't know honestly . I really dislike these rules
|
Waragha
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.05.22 20:55:00 -
[32]
Any chance at all that we scrap these rules and make a consortium of some of the players who have actually been in the tourny and pvps on a regular basis?
You gather up some of the main players and they will do the job for you. Complete openess about it is required though, possibly with some democracy so they don't get a head start
|
|
GM Nova
|
Posted - 2007.05.22 22:21:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Waragha These rules are extremely random.
You hit the nail on the head. They were designed specifically with that in mind. Real PvP is also pretty random. It's actually alot like opening a chrismas present, you seldom know what you are going to get.
That's all for now. I will adress your concerns regarding the warp bubble (I never said 250km bubble, more like 25km rad) and pod kills tomorrow.
Thank you all for your input.
|
|
QwaarJet
Gallente hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 01:11:00 -
[34]
Why go for more like real PvP? The tournament was always the ultimate test of skill, and having it resemble standard PvP brings way too many elements of luck into it.
Everyone i've talked to (mainly tournament pilots like myself) sya they want the small arena back. It's simply more fun and better test of skill.
"Hobbes, she stepped into the Perimeter Of Wisdom.Run!" |
Kayosoni
Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 02:41:00 -
[35]
The "more like real pvp" is incorrent... this will just be a different kind of fake pvp. -----------------------------------
btw, threatening to close 1 account really hurt my eyes. - xaioguai |
Michayel Lyon
The Corporation Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 02:54:00 -
[36]
If I wanted real PvP, I'd log into the game and go find some real PvP (which, by the way, I do - frequently).
The alliance tourney should be something else completely.
--- Lasiverin Dark > Is everyone here allied? Red Knight > we are allied by our zombie like ability to ***** missions
GM Xamother: "Beeing online is not considered harassment or exploit." |
Waragha
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 06:02:00 -
[37]
Originally by: GM Nova
Originally by: Waragha These rules are extremely random.
You hit the nail on the head. They were designed specifically with that in mind. Real PvP is also pretty random. It's actually alot like opening a chrismas present, you seldom know what you are going to get.
That's all for now. I will adress your concerns regarding the warp bubble (I never said 250km bubble, more like 25km rad) and pod kills tomorrow.
Thank you all for your input.
Appreciate the reply even though i was a bit whiney. I see what you're saying, but im not sure if this is going to be fun to watch / play in then. I'd say close to 50% of the matches will be walkovers with rougly equal teams (the fun matches) and the stalemates (not so fun) comprising the rest.
Also, how do you feel about not allowing the whole alliance to participate now that we have so many more "variables"?
|
Ithildin
Gallente The Corporation Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 06:26:00 -
[38]
Originally by: GM Nova
Originally by: Waragha These rules are extremely random.
You hit the nail on the head. They were designed specifically with that in mind. Real PvP is also pretty random. It's actually alot like opening a chrismas present, you seldom know what you are going to get.
That's all for now. I will adress your concerns regarding the warp bubble (I never said 250km bubble, more like 25km rad) and pod kills tomorrow.
Thank you all for your input.
Out of interest, will the tourny be held in range of Mothership jump drives?
Trust me, a tournament that is striving for "real PvP" is never going to make it. Real PvP is all about overwhelming the enemy either with surprise or odds - preferably both. Drop a couple of motherships on them to even out the numbers, chase them across several systems, and so on. Real PvP is a completely different sort of fun - with the strict exception of POS hugging, which isn't fun - that you'll be unable to capture in the tournament's sterile environment.
And seriously, don't make it a game of who's got the most money win. And for the love of all that's good, don't make it a match where the loser ends up losing several hundred millions in implants (per participant) just because they wanted to be competitive (but didn't make it). - EVE is sick. |
QwaarJet
Gallente hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 08:08:00 -
[39]
Edited by: QwaarJet on 23/05/2007 08:06:45 Agreed on the last several posts. This whole thing needs serious rethinking.
"Hobbes, she stepped into the Perimeter Of Wisdom.Run!" |
Kayosoni
Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 08:52:00 -
[40]
Srsly, the tournament should be about who can come up with the best strategy and stick with it while being a little adaptable.
First off, you say you want this to be like real pvp, and want to have no setup favored. well you fail at both. This is not going to be anything like real pvp. Allow me to explain:
Real pvp setup
Tourney setup
quite simple there.
In real pvp you can warp out, change systems, people that aren't warp scrambled will usually live. Setups are completely different from what they are in a tourney.
Logistic drones and ships are in the game almost specifically for the tourney. They have almost no other use, certainly not in real pvp. Real pvp does not start at a pre-determined range and place. Real pvp does not allow people to not warp out.
The tournament is about bragging rights and e-peen, glory and shame. Real pvp (conquering territory) has nothing to do with it. If it was about real pvp, we'd jump titans in, setup poses, and the first to get sov. is the victor.
Now then, allowing ewar is probably the dumbest thing you could possibly do in this tournament, in case you ever thought it through. Do you realize what module will be the most used module? I won't say it, but it should be obvious.
Think it through a little more, this is not going to be anything like real pvp. Just a different, boring, bad, flavor of fake compared to the previous 3 tournaments. -----------------------------------
btw, threatening to close 1 account really hurt my eyes. - xaioguai |
|
ookke
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 09:00:00 -
[41]
Can't really say I believe in this "resembles real pvp more" randomness. Most of the fights you will get with these rules would just be horribly boring and/or one-sided due to setup/start range/EW paper-rock-scissors stuff and people being careful.
I don't get the cosmos/rigs disallowing part either... Cosmos has been allowed for the last two tournaments and there never seemed to be a problem with it. Rigs I can maybe understand if you are afraid of extreme tank turtles but it seems like you gave that tactic a green light with the repair bots anyway. If you want faster matches then ban ECM and repair bots.
|
Raem Civrie
Umbra Congregatio Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 09:04:00 -
[42]
EWar is not fun. It's not fun to use, to be subject to, or to watch.
EWar should have no place in this tournament. ----
I solemnly vow never to check the date of a topic or post. |
RedClaws
Amarr Dragon's Rage Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 13:35:00 -
[43]
Nice rules : I hope it gets interesting.
But please please reconsider the usage of implants. It only allows the big alliances to win since the small ones just can't compete due to the lack of isk. Normally I'd like my own alliance to join in but with the current implant rule we might aswell not even sign up since we have no chance to win without implants
Also please keep a close eye on "phantom alliances". With this I mean alliances that suddenly get "revived" 1 week before the tournament.
If I remember correctly quite a few alliances did this so they had multiple groups fighting under different banners while they actually were from the same alliance.
I know it'll be hard to check but please do try. Thanks
|
Damir36
Gallente PPN United Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 14:10:00 -
[44]
HeHe, but why the the restriction to 10 Players? just leave the shippoints. I would like to see seme ppl getting swarmed bei 32 Tech II fittet Tech I frigs (plus one Assfrig for the max points)
Ok, not totally serious, but maybe a little?
GrnŻe Damir
Beware: German Link!:) Deutschprachige Piloten gesucht |
Pilk
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 14:15:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Pilk on 23/05/2007 14:13:49 A lot of hostility in these replies (including my own), but I do want to take a moment to THANK YOU for posting the rules early enough that we can post constructive criticism and tailor our skill plans and pilots' role assignments accordingly. (/me takes Neurotoxin Recovery V off his skill plan. )
--P
Kosh: The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote. |
Waragha
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 15:37:00 -
[46]
Originally by: RedClaws Nice rules : I hope it gets interesting.
But please please reconsider the usage of implants. It only allows the big alliances to win since the small ones just can't compete due to the lack of isk. Normally I'd like my own alliance to join in but with the current implant rule we might aswell not even sign up since we have no chance to win without implants
Also please keep a close eye on "phantom alliances". With this I mean alliances that suddenly get "revived" 1 week before the tournament.
If I remember correctly quite a few alliances did this so they had multiple groups fighting under different banners while they actually were from the same alliance.
I know it'll be hard to check but please do try. Thanks
Why? What if i like making a smaller team for the duration of the tourny and then go back to my corp afterwards? Why shouldn't i be allowed to do that?
|
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 16:08:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Waragha
Originally by: RedClaws Nice rules : I hope it gets interesting.
But please please reconsider the usage of implants. It only allows the big alliances to win since the small ones just can't compete due to the lack of isk. Normally I'd like my own alliance to join in but with the current implant rule we might aswell not even sign up since we have no chance to win without implants
Also please keep a close eye on "phantom alliances". With this I mean alliances that suddenly get "revived" 1 week before the tournament.
If I remember correctly quite a few alliances did this so they had multiple groups fighting under different banners while they actually were from the same alliance.
I know it'll be hard to check but please do try. Thanks
Why? What if i like making a smaller team for the duration of the tourny and then go back to my corp afterwards? Why shouldn't i be allowed to do that?
I think the idea is for you to represent your alliance not be some fleet of ringers, have some pride.
I motion for it to be held in 0.0 this time, I prefer spending my security status on busting gatecamps.
Also Known As |
Waragha
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 16:10:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Danton Marcellus
Originally by: Waragha
Originally by: RedClaws Nice rules : I hope it gets interesting.
But please please reconsider the usage of implants. It only allows the big alliances to win since the small ones just can't compete due to the lack of isk. Normally I'd like my own alliance to join in but with the current implant rule we might aswell not even sign up since we have no chance to win without implants
Also please keep a close eye on "phantom alliances". With this I mean alliances that suddenly get "revived" 1 week before the tournament.
If I remember correctly quite a few alliances did this so they had multiple groups fighting under different banners while they actually were from the same alliance.
I know it'll be hard to check but please do try. Thanks
Why? What if i like making a smaller team for the duration of the tourny and then go back to my corp afterwards? Why shouldn't i be allowed to do that?
I think the idea is for you to represent your alliance not be some fleet of ringers, have some pride.
I motion for it to be held in 0.0 this time, I prefer spending my security status on busting gatecamps.
Well, you're loosing out on alot of teams then. And i don't see what it should matter if i represtent lol_2007_alliance that will disband next week or one i've made for the occasion.
|
RedClaws
Amarr Dragon's Rage Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 18:44:00 -
[49]
Well outbreak isn't in an alliance but lets say that 10 of us from IRC join the tournament but we make a new alliance called IRC2 and put 10 members inthere that will also join the tourny.
That gives us a clear advantage over other alliance that don't "cheat" since we can afford to lose and still have our B-Team
|
Waragha
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 20:40:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Waragha on 23/05/2007 20:42:18 Edited by: Waragha on 23/05/2007 20:41:49
Originally by: RedClaws Well outbreak isn't in an alliance but lets say that 10 of us from IRC join the tournament but we make a new alliance called IRC2 and put 10 members inthere that will also join the tourny.
That gives us a clear advantage over other alliance that don't "cheat" since we can afford to lose and still have our B-Team
Sure if you can afford the isk for two teams, even then, with these extremely random rules you have a very little chance of winning. Also you can only chose THOSE 10 people (vs. all the alliances that can choose from several thousand people).
Nobody's ever "covered their bases" by having two teams, only lost money. The spare BoB teams or what ever havent made it past the qualifiers, sooo.. I really can't see your point? Do you have any facts to back up your opinion?
Moar edit
The last two alliances have hit no where NEAR max allowed teams. What was it? Forty last year? And remember the sweeping forfeiths / teams not showing up the year before that? Yeah that was fun :) I think we all enjoyed the waiting for teams who where *** enough not to send a mail saying they wheren't coming.
|
|
Nifel
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 21:51:00 -
[51]
A big meh to all of this. I predict a lot of zzzz with these rules, both for those that watch it and those that take part.
"When I die I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandpa. Not yelling and screaming like the passengers in his car." RKK Ranking: Sama |
Morris Falter
The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.05.24 08:50:00 -
[52]
How to have a realistic artifical combat.. its a very tough situation.
Also, to make it broadcastable live.. again tough. If you were to introduce an arena spanning several systems (more akin to normal pvp situations) then combat would have to be recorded and broadcasted once the round is resolved.. but the result will be known before the broadcast. Is that a bad thing? The result isnt the end objective I suppose, its the fun of the event that should be the focus.
How about introducing tasks for the teams? Such as.. escorting a freighter, breaking a camp, blocking a choke point, deploying a POS under fire, defending a capital ship under construction.. would be more interesting perhaps than this bizarre and artifical isk "gratification" that is the tournament at the moment.
Speaking from my own experience, these kind of operations have been the most fun from "real" pvp situations, and I'm sure they'd be good viewing.
Just a thought.
|
ookke
|
Posted - 2007.05.24 09:28:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Morris Falter
How about introducing tasks for the teams? Such as.. escorting a freighter, breaking a camp, blocking a choke point, deploying a POS under fire, defending a capital ship under construction.. would be more interesting perhaps than this bizarre and artifical isk "gratification" that is the tournament at the moment.
Speaking from my own experience, these kind of operations have been the most fun from "real" pvp situations, and I'm sure they'd be good viewing.
Just a thought.
You can already find this kind of stuff on the video forums when people remember to turn on fraps. 10 vs 10 pos defense tournament would be a bit... weak in my opinion. If you make it bigger scale then it's uh... known as TQ alliance pvp?
The alliance tournament has always been small scale pvp, so setting objectives where normally the whole alliance is involved in doesn't make sense. CCP have also given the impression that they want to keep the tournament participants within one grid and without warping around to keep the extra coding work to the minimum.
|
Seegers
|
Posted - 2007.05.24 09:38:00 -
[54]
The only problem i have with the rules are the implants. There aren't a lot of people that pvp with a full high-grade implant set, so allowing them in the tournament does not really resemble 'normal' pvp. Coupled with the fact that it gives the alliance with the most isk a big advantage, i think they should not be allowed.
As for ECM and logistics drones, those are used in 'normal' pvp, and i think it could make the fights more interesting.
|
ookke
|
Posted - 2007.05.24 10:16:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Seegers The only problem i have with the rules are the implants. There aren't a lot of people that pvp with a full high-grade implant set, so allowing them in the tournament does not really resemble 'normal' pvp. Coupled with the fact that it gives the alliance with the most isk a big advantage, i think they should not be allowed.
As for ECM and logistics drones, those are used in 'normal' pvp, and i think it could make the fights more interesting.
There aren't a lot of people out of an alliance that participate in the tournament either, it's not a big effort to get enough isk to buy a HG/LG mixed set for each participant. Bringing ships like Corvus and Storm out without pirate sets would be kind of contradicting, it has never been about affordability. You send your best pilots with the best ships, setups and implants you can get.
What you are thinking of is probably more what the corp tourney was supposed to be about, alliance tournament for corps without pirate sets and faction ships.
|
BluOrange
Gallente Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2007.05.24 11:30:00 -
[56]
What's the reasoning behind 'no warping within the area'? ------ Agony Unleashed is recruiting. |
ookke
|
Posted - 2007.05.24 11:59:00 -
[57]
Read the OP...
Originally by: GM Nova
However, due to technical and game design issues we will have to make concessions, like for instance not allowing players to warp within the grid. This is something we really wanted to allow but are not able at this point. The main reason for this is manpower. Revelations 2 is coming soon and we do not have the programming time to do the things we would most want to do.
|
RedClaws
Amarr Dragon's Rage Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.05.24 13:35:00 -
[58]
Edited by: RedClaws on 24/05/2007 13:35:35
Originally by: Waragha
Sure if you can afford the isk for two teams, even then, with these extremely random rules you have a very little chance of winning.
Thats my point : I'd like small alliance to be able to compete as well. Saying that creating multiple teams is ok if you have the money is even counterproductive to my intentions.
Originally by: Waragha
Also you can only chose THOSE 10 people (vs. all the alliances that can choose from several thousand people).
Well in my example I did indeed say that 10 people would be moving but it can be 100 people just as easily.
Originally by: Waragha
Nobody's ever "covered their bases" by having two teams, only lost money. The spare BoB teams or what ever havent made it past the qualifiers, sooo.. I really can't see your point? Do you have any facts to back up your opinion?
I'm not so sure about the "only lost money" statement. Lets say team A has a bad day and loses: that would be the end of the alliance's participation in the tourny.
Now if the alliance also had a team B they can still keep participating : you can't deny that it's unfair to have a second chance compared to alliances that only field 1 team, right?
The fact that the spare BoB teams never made it far doesn't matter to be honest. It's the principle thats wrong. I'm also not quite sure with what you mean about backing up my opinion. It's my opinion and I'm quite sure I have it But just to set things right : this isn't directed at BoB personally because IIRC there were plenty of big alliances doing the same.
Originally by: Waragha
The last two alliances have hit no where NEAR max allowed teams. What was it? Forty last year? And remember the sweeping forfeiths / teams not showing up the year before that? Yeah that was fun :) I think we all enjoyed the waiting for teams who where *** enough not to send a mail saying they wheren't coming.
The forfeiths aren't that much of an issue anymore due to last year's deposit rule. I do however understand your worries that not allowing multiple teams to participate will cause the number of teams to drop considerable.
I'm hoping that if this rule (not being allowed to use "phantom alliances") when combined with the "no pirate implants" rule, would encourage more smaller alliances to participate.
|
Waragha
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.05.24 15:30:00 -
[59]
Originally by: RedClaws Edited by: RedClaws on 24/05/2007 13:35:35 ...
Originally by: Waragha
Nobody's ever "covered their bases" by having two teams, only lost money. The spare BoB teams or what ever havent made it past the qualifiers, sooo.. I really can't see your point? Do you have any facts to back up your opinion?
I'm not so sure about the "only lost money" statement. Lets say team A has a bad day and loses: that would be the end of the alliance's participation in the tourny.
Now if the alliance also had a team B they can still keep participating : you can't deny that it's unfair to have a second chance compared to alliances that only field 1 team, right? ...
The chance of winning is so small especially with these rules (10 players, full alliance rooster, no warping whilst allowing podding, 250km bubble). The ISK/reward of getting top 3 makes it more interesting to have more teams rather than eliminating these 2 or 3 extra teams in the tourny.
|
Pattern Clarc
Celtic Anarchy
|
Posted - 2007.05.24 15:44:00 -
[60]
Patterns vertict.... Alliance Rules....
Ewar Epic failure...
Between all the jamming and sensor damping, who is going to actually shoot again? (arnt these fights suppost to be fun to watch and a good advert for the game??? Ewar the last time i remember it wasn't)
Pod Killing Epic Failure....
I kinda liked the idea that an alliance (no matter how wealthly it was) could potencially commit a few billion to it's best pilots, in order to compete. Pod killing only means that only the richest alliances/pilots can do this (the personal isk of alot of pilots in the higher tier alliaces can fund several sets of high grade implants)
No rigs or boosters Epic failure....
With all the time and effort going into introducing these features, it's ******* hilarious that now you realise how unbalnaced they can make ships if used correctly. With the new point system anyway, all it takes is 10 remote repping battleships with sensor boosters/eccm to ensure no one will die...
No faction/event ships/prizes. Failure...
This was my number 1 motivation for taking part... Nevermind Sig removed lacks EVE content, email [email protected] if you have any questions - Xorus |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |