Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 13 post(s) |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
90
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 17:57:00 -
[91] - Quote
There's a lot of good dialogue here and I'd just like to take a second to note that what is helpful is an explanation of "why" you think the idea is bad. "This sucks ur an idiot" really doesn't provide anyone with any perspective other than the fact that you're a bad poster.
|
|
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
0
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:01:00 -
[92] - Quote
I've been in a few tournaments and absolutely love them, They're one of the great highlights or my Eve year. This banning idea is so bloody stupid I don't even know where to begin though. Whoever had this idea should be shoved over the edge of one of those volcanoes CCP has on their doorstep. How can you possibly think that giving a team the option to eliminate a key ship in the opposition team without firing a shot will make for better fights? It's an insane idea. Please CCP, drop this now before you ruin one of Eve's greatest spectacles. |
Strider Hiryu
Kangaroos With Frickin Lazerbeams The KWFL Republic
4
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:03:00 -
[93] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: "This sucks ur an idiot"
|
Darpz
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:05:00 -
[94] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:There's a lot of good dialogue here and I'd just like to take a second to note that what is helpful is an explanation of "why" you think the idea is bad. "This sucks ur an idiot" really doesn't provide anyone with any perspective other than the fact that you're a bad poster.
plenty of people said why its bad, it will make setups less dynamic instead of more |
DHB WildCat
Flash Over. WE FORM VOLTRON
14
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:06:00 -
[95] - Quote
Please dont forget that you are also banning a PLAYER from the match, and not just the ship.... Like if we were fighting PL, or HYDRA.... I would make banning Shamis, or Garmon a priority over the ship!
Also WTH is with this automatic qualifier to the finals for the final four teams from last year? Does this mean we do not participate in the qualifiers? Does it mean we get #1 seeds in the four regions? And why? why should we get a bye, from last years status? Everyone should have to prove themselves again, including my team which was in the top four last year! |
Brinxter
The Golden Guns Adeptus Arbites
0
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:10:00 -
[96] - Quote
To add my two cents,
In bigger alliances you might have only one chance to participate in the AT every year, since probably a lot of people would like to add it to their CV. Imagine how you (ccp) would feel if you get left out, without getting to do anything against it.
Oh, and the good FCs are known by heart, and are for all intents and purposes irreplacable, atleast for smaller alliances, so forcing ppl to add mutliple FCs to a fight, just because one might get banned, reduces the chances for that one guy to participate even further.
Also, i completely agree that this will probably dumb down the matches, either play without logi, or make that your flagship, which is a bad idea.
Please reconsider this, because i cant see a way for this to end pretty otherwise. |
Tyrrax Thorrk
Guiding Hand Social Club Dystopia Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:11:00 -
[97] - Quote
DHB WildCat wrote:Please dont forget that you are also banning a PLAYER from the match, and not just the ship.... Like if we were fighting PL, or HYDRA.... I would make banning Shamis, or Garmon a priority over the ship!
Also WTH is with this automatic qualifier to the finals for the final four teams from last year? Does this mean we do not participate in the qualifiers? Does it mean we get #1 seeds in the four regions? And why? why should we get a bye, from last years status? Everyone should have to prove themselves again, including my team which was in the top four last year!
Totally agree with this, why make it easier on the teams that did the best last time ? Sure give them guaranteed spots in the tournament (and for that matter give top 8 or top 16 like last time) but beyond that the more matches they take part in the better, more chances for underdogs to emerge victorious against the big dogs. |
Zenst
Hall Of Flame Chain of Chaos
0
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:12:00 -
[98] - Quote
CCP Zirnitra wrote:So, as you may have read in CCP Mindstar's latest dev blog, we have now introduced a new feature into the Alliance Tournament rules, namely the ability to remove a ship from the field before the battle starts. The way banning works, is that prior to the match starting, after both teams have warped into the arena, you are given 2 minutes to decide which, if any, of the ships from the opposing team you would like to remove from the match. This pick has to be communicated to GameMaster assigned to your team by the team captain, and the selected ship will be moved back out of the system prior to the match starting. You will of course not be able to remove a flagship from the field, we all do really want to see those expensive ships blow up, am I right? We would however still like to hear your thoughts on this new mechanic, and how you think this may impact the tournament, for the better or worse.
This will certainly spice things up tacticaly and for that I fully approve.
There is one or two small change/addition I would add.
1) Once somebody has been ban selected they are immune for there teams next fight. I believe that would add another layer of tactic and indeed fairness to prevent greifing by constantly picking on XXX as it becomes some tornament meme. I'm sure you understand the logic there.
2) Team captains are imune also to this rule. Whilst this does somewhat water down this introduction it afford us as much fun and indeed more fun. Also makes sence and this rule change a bit more palatable too all.
If you could concider those two points please Mr GM, DEV, Sir Govner; Then I would and know doubt others would be extreemly grateful.
Beyond that we will only find everybody picking there logistics or ganglink command ship as a flagship and that would make for many sad panda's who wish for mucho explosiono of lovely previous too unfold.
So those two point highlighted above or everybody will have there logistics ship as a flagship.
-- Mindstar will read the above and agree, GM alert keywords HAX, expliot, isk sellers, 2 ladies 1 challace, Boss, de plane, de plane! --
|
Brinxter
The Golden Guns Adeptus Arbites
0
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:12:00 -
[99] - Quote
DHB WildCat wrote:Please dont forget that you are also banning a PLAYER from the match, and not just the ship.... Like if we were fighting PL, or HYDRA.... I would make banning Shamis, or Garmon a priority over the ship!
Also WTH is with this automatic qualifier to the finals for the final four teams from last year? Does this mean we do not participate in the qualifiers? Does it mean we get #1 seeds in the four regions? And why? why should we get a bye, from last years status? Everyone should have to prove themselves again, including my team which was in the top four last year!
I agree with this aswell, former glory is well and nice, but it shouldnt make you automatically better then the rest, hell, not with such a new and "exciting" as banning :'-(
Make it optional, ask the # 1-4 if they want to skip the pre rounds, id bet they dont even want it. |
Brinxter
The Golden Guns Adeptus Arbites
0
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:15:00 -
[100] - Quote
Zenst wrote: There is one or two small change/addition I would add.
[b]1) Once somebody has been ban selected they are immune for there teams next fight. I believe that would add another layer of tactic and indeed fairness to prevent greifing by constantly picking on XXX as it becomes some tornament meme. I'm sure you understand the logic there.
2) Team captains are imune also to this rule. Whilst this does somewhat water down this introduction it afford us as much fun and indeed more fun. Also makes sence and this rule change a bit more palatable too all.
This is an equally bad idea, first round, FC is the logi (+FS), second round, FC in dps, FS and guy banned last round in logi. Next round, you can predict who will be banned...
No, the idea isnt bad, its just plain wrong. |
|
Raquel Smith
Freedom-Technologies Eych Four Eks Zero Ahr
0
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:16:00 -
[101] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:There's a lot of good dialogue here and I'd just like to take a second to note that what is helpful is an explanation of "why" you think the idea is bad. "This sucks ur an idiot" really doesn't provide anyone with any perspective other than the fact that you're a bad poster.
The idea sucks because it's not remotely close to how any of the previous alliance tournaments were run. Previous rule changes tweaked point values and introduced flagships (which I don't particularly care for). No other tournament has granted the privilege to a player to designate another player for someone who can't play. Some players would need to take time off work to play or they need to stay awake until 4am. Nullifying the right to play Eve Online is not something that should be done by anyone except for rules infractions.
Further, the banning rule will result in less innovative setups, as has been indicated before. Pick a homogeneous setup: 10 battlecruisers of roughly equal worth to the team. Even though it was an epic win we'll see a ten thorax setup where any one ship could be taken out and the team has the more of the same. It was entertaining to watch when BoB got destroyed but watching every match be the same thing is just not worth the time or bandwidth.
I'm hoping that the banning rule is squashed before teams waste time trying to plan around it. |
Thud
Mad-Warping-Maniacs
0
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:18:00 -
[102] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:There's a lot of good dialogue here and I'd just like to take a second to note that what is helpful is an explanation of "why" you think the idea is bad. "This sucks ur an idiot" really doesn't provide anyone with any perspective other than the fact that you're a bad poster.
There are lots of people here that allready explained it,but if you ask i try to do it again. So read carefully.
The banning rule is a bad idea for two main reasons. First it seriously diminishes the number of setups that can be used,there will be only a few viable setups left. This takes out tactics as well as variety. Why will it reduce the number of viable setups? Well, it basicaly means you cant fit any setups in wich a ship has an importend role. The chances of it being banned are to high,even if you try to conceal what it is, there is just no way to know what the enemy FC thinks and what he might eliminate. The risk of losing because of this is too big. So,logistics,command ships,marauders, t3 ships,all those wont be used.
But this is not all, the banning rule also gives and advantage to 10 ship teams over teams that field less ships. Why? Simpel, if you bring 10 times the same ship, one being banned wont make a big difference. If you however chose to bring a setup that instead uses 5 bigger ships it makes a way bigger difference if you lose one.
Now there is one kind of setup that can deal with the banning the best,and this is a setup that uses as mutch ships of the same type as possible. For example 10 thorax cruisers. You cant do too mutch damage with banning to a 10 rax setup. Wich means,if you bring such a setup and your enemy shows up with something more sophisticated you can be sure that you can do more damage to him with banning than he can do to you. This is why you will see almost exclusively 10 man all same shiptype setups.
Now,that was the first reason. The second one is less importend,and was also allready mentioned. Some people train for weeks for this tournament, and might even take a day of to be part of it. And you want to ban em?
So,this "why" enough? |
DHB WildCat
Flash Over. WE FORM VOLTRON
14
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:18:00 -
[103] - Quote
Brinxter wrote:DHB WildCat wrote:Please dont forget that you are also banning a PLAYER from the match, and not just the ship.... Like if we were fighting PL, or HYDRA.... I would make banning Shamis, or Garmon a priority over the ship!
Also WTH is with this automatic qualifier to the finals for the final four teams from last year? Does this mean we do not participate in the qualifiers? Does it mean we get #1 seeds in the four regions? And why? why should we get a bye, from last years status? Everyone should have to prove themselves again, including my team which was in the top four last year! I agree with this aswell, former glory is well and nice, but it shouldnt make you automatically better then the rest, hell, not with such a new and "exciting" as banning :'-( Make it optional, ask the # 1-4 if they want to skip the pre rounds, id bet they dont even want it.
I know I wouldnt want it.... This is the ONLY form of PVP in this game with tactics and even odds. I would consider it a punishment if I could not have the opportunity to kick ass! |
Mr Rive
Rens 911 GoonSwarm
28
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:20:00 -
[104] - Quote
Ill try and give you as best an explantion of it as i can:
Ive been very active at planning PL tourney teams in the past, and while not the best theorycrafter in PL, I go to a far end of a fart to make sure i know how the setups we choose work, and why.
Nobody can tell you precisely what effect this will have on the tournament yet, until we start testing for it (it is my fervent hope we will not have to), however, the first thought that comes into my head when thinking of this rule is generic setups. This means using teams that have no lynchpin in them, for instance a commandship, or a rook, or a logistics ship. We will also be forced to work around using flagships. What you will see therefore is a lot of slugfest matches, where an attempt is made to get as much DPS and EHP out of all the ships as possible, removing the need of a 'support ship' to back them up. Alterniavely, you will see teams full of jamming ships, so that if one is removed the impact on the team is small.
The result of this is obvious; you will end up with slugfests, or jamfests. The setups we all love to see, such as the all amarr team we ran last year will be no use. That setup relied on several factors being in place for it to work. You will see massive amounts of battlecruiser teams, whose matches will last a very short time indeed.
Metagaming will take a huge role in it as well. 90% of the time we know a team leaders alts and mains before we go into a match. What do you think will happen to those players. This actually makes it much easier for a team like PL to win, as ALL our team has had FCing experience at one point or another, meaning that if you removed shamis for instance, our coherance would remain the same. This obviously wouldnt be the case for smaller alliances. You are effectively condemning them to a short tournament.
The way im going about it, you would think that im against this because it will make it harder for PL. In fact the opposite is true. I dont think you could have done anything other than biasing the tournament in PL's favour, to make it easier for PL to win. Why so many of the big teams are against this so much is because it will make the tournament a lot less interesting to watch and play. A lot less intricate, a lot less flamboyant, a lot less 'pinpoint accurate'.
If you want solutions that might make this better, ask, but im not going to post them here, as i would rather see it removed altogether. You will already see completely different setups because of the other rule changes |
EasyStreets
Kangaroos With Frickin Lazerbeams The KWFL Republic
0
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:24:00 -
[105] - Quote
...so I put in for days off from work a month in advance and there is a possibility that I will sit and watch? This is a really bad idea. The only art in pvp is the fitting on your ships and the makeup of your gangs and youre taking one of those away. Craziness. |
Raimo
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
0
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:26:00 -
[106] - Quote
+1 The implementation of the "banning" idea as currently presented is very bad. |
Tbone Johnson
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
8
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:26:00 -
[107] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:There's a lot of good dialogue here and I'd just like to take a second to note that what is helpful is an explanation of "why" you think the idea is bad. "This sucks ur an idiot" really doesn't provide anyone with any perspective other than the fact that you're a bad poster.
Theres already 4 pages explaining why when you posted this. The bad poster is U.
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
90
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:28:00 -
[108] - Quote
Tbone Johnson wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:There's a lot of good dialogue here and I'd just like to take a second to note that what is helpful is an explanation of "why" you think the idea is bad. "This sucks ur an idiot" really doesn't provide anyone with any perspective other than the fact that you're a bad poster.
Theres already 4 pages explaining why when you posted this. The bad poster is U.
4 pages in a 6 page thread. Math.
:edit: also, I'm curious to see variety of opinion just as much as I am to see thoughtfulness in opinion.
:edit2: That's a p sweet avatar though |
|
DHB WildCat
Flash Over. WE FORM VOLTRON
14
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:30:00 -
[109] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Tbone Johnson wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:There's a lot of good dialogue here and I'd just like to take a second to note that what is helpful is an explanation of "why" you think the idea is bad. "This sucks ur an idiot" really doesn't provide anyone with any perspective other than the fact that you're a bad poster.
Theres already 4 pages explaining why when you posted this. The bad poster is U. 4 pages in a 6 page thread. Math. :edit: also, I'm curious to see variety of opinion just as much as I am to see thoughtfulness in opinion. :edit2: That's a p sweet avatar though
Out of curiosity..... Banning a player for doing nothing wrong!? There has to be something in the eula about this and as such I would raise hell if I was banned from anything in EVE because of "no reason"
http://www.eveonline.com/pnp/banning.asp - EULA on banning a player.
I know that paying for a service only to then be told I cannot use said service even when paid for is a criminal act!? Just saying.... |
fmercury
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
4
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:31:00 -
[110] - Quote
Mr Rive wrote:Ill try and give you as best an explantion of it as i can:
Ive been very active at planning PL tourney teams in the past, and while not the best theorycrafter in PL, I go to a far end of a fart to make sure i know how the setups we choose work, and why.
Nobody can tell you precisely what effect this will have on the tournament yet, until we start testing for it (it is my fervent hope we will not have to), however, the first thought that comes into my head when thinking of this rule is generic setups. This means using teams that have no lynchpin in them, for instance a commandship, or a rook, or a logistics ship. We will also be forced to work around using flagships. What you will see therefore is a lot of slugfest matches, where an attempt is made to get as much DPS and EHP out of all the ships as possible, removing the need of a 'support ship' to back them up. Alterniavely, you will see teams full of jamming ships, so that if one is removed the impact on the team is small.
The result of this is obvious; you will end up with slugfests, or jamfests. The setups we all love to see, such as the all amarr team we ran last year will be no use. That setup relied on several factors being in place for it to work. You will see massive amounts of battlecruiser teams, whose matches will last a very short time indeed.
Metagaming will take a huge role in it as well. 90% of the time we know a team leaders alts and mains before we go into a match. What do you think will happen to those players. This actually makes it much easier for a team like PL to win, as ALL our team has had FCing experience at one point or another, meaning that if you removed shamis for instance, our coherance would remain the same. This obviously wouldnt be the case for smaller alliances. You are effectively condemning them to a short tournament.
The way im going about it, you would think that im against this because it will make it harder for PL. In fact the opposite is true. I dont think you could have done anything other than biasing the tournament in PL's favour, to make it easier for PL to win. Why so many of the big teams are against this so much is because it will make the tournament a lot less interesting to watch and play. A lot less intricate, a lot less flamboyant, a lot less 'pinpoint accurate'.
If you want solutions that might make this better, ask, but im not going to post them here, as i would rather see it removed altogether. You will already see completely different setups because of the other rule changes
MY CEO :swoon: |
|
Mr Rive
Rens 911 GoonSwarm
28
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:32:00 -
[111] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: :edit: also, I'm curious to see variety of opinion just as much as I am to see thoughtfulness in opinion.
Im sorry, what? If by variety of opinion you mean a tally of people who like it and hate it, i think you already have your answer for that. If by variety of alliances, you already have the top 4 teams braying out against it. What more do you want?
I could pull my alt on here and say LOL I LIKE DIS IDEA but i dont think it would make it any better... |
leboe
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
0
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:34:00 -
[112] - Quote
Nikuno wrote:I've been in a few tournaments and absolutely love them, They're one of the great highlights or my Eve year. This banning idea is so bloody stupid I don't even know where to begin though. Whoever had this idea should be shoved over the edge of one of those volcanoes CCP has on their doorstep. How can you possibly think that giving a team the option to eliminate a key ship in the opposition team without firing a shot will make for better fights? It's an insane idea. Please CCP, drop this now before you ruin one of Eve's greatest spectacles.
Way to prove DJ right :(
My huge concern is the metagaming. It happens and I encourage it, but either eliminating linchpins from setups because you cant risk them being banned, or having your opponent simply figure out whatever tricks you're trying to pull, makes it too straightforward.
Plus if you wake up at 5am to get ready for the tourney, just to get banned, you're not having fun. Preparing myself to play in the tourney was super exiting last year, even though I wasnt fielded (thank god tbh) and it just makes me want to try harder this year. Playing in the tournament is part of the my small gang PVP endgame, and being eliminated from participating by arbitrary rules would be unfortunate. |
|
CCP Zirnitra
C C P C C P Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:38:00 -
[113] - Quote
DHB WildCat wrote:Also WTH is with this automatic qualifier to the finals for the final four teams from last year? Does this mean we do not participate in the qualifiers? Does it mean we get #1 seeds in the four regions? And why? why should we get a bye, from last years status? Everyone should have to prove themselves again, including my team which was in the top four last year! The 4 teams will get a direct spot in the group stages, they will not go straight to the final single elimination stage. You will still have to prove yourself, both in the group stages as well as in the elimination stage, to get a win. |
|
Zenst
Hall Of Flame Chain of Chaos
0
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:40:00 -
[114] - Quote
Mr Rive wrote:Ill try and give you as best an explantion of it as i can:
Ive been very active at planning PL tourney teams in the past, and while not the best theorycrafter in PL, I go to a far end of a fart to make sure i know how the setups we choose work, and why.
Nobody can tell you precisely what effect this will have on the tournament yet, until we start testing for it (it is my fervent hope we will not have to), however, the first thought that comes into my head when thinking of this rule is generic setups. This means using teams that have no lynchpin in them, for instance a commandship, or a rook, or a logistics ship. We will also be forced to work around using flagships. What you will see therefore is a lot of slugfest matches, where an attempt is made to get as much DPS and EHP out of all the ships as possible, removing the need of a 'support ship' to back them up. Alterniavely, you will see teams full of jamming ships, so that if one is removed the impact on the team is small.
The result of this is obvious; you will end up with slugfests, or jamfests. The setups we all love to see, such as the all amarr team we ran last year will be no use. That setup relied on several factors being in place for it to work. You will see massive amounts of battlecruiser teams, whose matches will last a very short time indeed.
Metagaming will take a huge role in it as well. 90% of the time we know a team leaders alts and mains before we go into a match. What do you think will happen to those players. This actually makes it much easier for a team like PL to win, as ALL our team has had FCing experience at one point or another, meaning that if you removed shamis for instance, our coherance would remain the same. This obviously wouldnt be the case for smaller alliances. You are effectively condemning them to a short tournament.
The way im going about it, you would think that im against this because it will make it harder for PL. In fact the opposite is true. I dont think you could have done anything other than biasing the tournament in PL's favour, to make it easier for PL to win. Why so many of the big teams are against this so much is because it will make the tournament a lot less interesting to watch and play. A lot less intricate, a lot less flamboyant, a lot less 'pinpoint accurate'.
If you want solutions that might make this better, ask, but im not going to post them here, as i would rather see it removed altogether. You will already see completely different setups because of the other rule changes
Well said my friend. Though like me do you not wonder if this is some evil way to get the forums properly tested out and was put in to cause lots of posts and also so they can go ok look we do listern and take it out distracting us all compeletely from looking at any detail the other changes in time :). In business you always plan out what your prepared to concied before your negotiate. This rule is just that, though with some tweaks I feel it could fly fairly. IE at the very least team captains are imune
|
Admiral Goberius
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
4
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:41:00 -
[115] - Quote
**** da haters Sreegs I think the ban rule is a good one
just make Logis also immune to being banned, it doesnt make sense to allow the use of 1 key ship then making it bannable (everyone will ban the logis, everygame) ~ alternatively allow 2 logis or 2 bans
like I wrote in the other thread, if you could ban 1 player in a football game you would always pick the goalkeeper |
DHB WildCat
Flash Over. WE FORM VOLTRON
14
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:42:00 -
[116] - Quote
CCP Zirnitra wrote:DHB WildCat wrote:Also WTH is with this automatic qualifier to the finals for the final four teams from last year? Does this mean we do not participate in the qualifiers? Does it mean we get #1 seeds in the four regions? And why? why should we get a bye, from last years status? Everyone should have to prove themselves again, including my team which was in the top four last year! The 4 teams will get a direct spot in the group stages, they will not go straight to the final single elimination stage. You will still have to prove yourself, both in the group stages as well as in the elimination stage, to get a win.
I can live with that... as long as i'm not barred from all the fights i can get! |
Ntrails
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:43:00 -
[117] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Tbone Johnson wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:There's a lot of good dialogue here and I'd just like to take a second to note that what is helpful is an explanation of "why" you think the idea is bad. "This sucks ur an idiot" really doesn't provide anyone with any perspective other than the fact that you're a bad poster.
Theres already 4 pages explaining why when you posted this. The bad poster is U. 4 pages in a 6 page thread. Math.
Do you have a single reason why the idea is good?
Less interesting set ups mean fewer interesting matches to watch. Without logistics they will be shorter too, which perhaps fulfills some inner desire to appeal to outside of your target audience?
The entire logic ccp has offered is 'wouldn't it be cool if...'
No. No it isn't cool. It is dumb because it alters the correct/perfect tactics in an uninteresting way.
What does it add? It pisses off the guy who doesn't get to play. It pisses off a team for losing to something that is non-involving. It doesn't add anything for an audience to enjoy beyond discussion of whether the right ship was banned.
You want to have a discussion of why it is bad, then put yourself out there and suggest why on earth you think it is good. That way the terrible posters can illustrate why you are wrong whilst mashing their keyboard angrily. Change for changes sake is not a good argument. |
Raivi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
3
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:45:00 -
[118] - Quote
DHB WildCat wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Tbone Johnson wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:There's a lot of good dialogue here and I'd just like to take a second to note that what is helpful is an explanation of "why" you think the idea is bad. "This sucks ur an idiot" really doesn't provide anyone with any perspective other than the fact that you're a bad poster.
Theres already 4 pages explaining why when you posted this. The bad poster is U. 4 pages in a 6 page thread. Math. :edit: also, I'm curious to see variety of opinion just as much as I am to see thoughtfulness in opinion. :edit2: That's a p sweet avatar though Out of curiosity..... Banning a player for doing nothing wrong!? There has to be something in the eula about this and as such I would raise hell if I was banned from anything in EVE because of "no reason" http://www.eveonline.com/pnp/banning.asp - EULA on banning a player. I know that paying for a service only to then be told I cannot use said service even when paid for is a criminal act!? Just saying....
100 +reps to you fine sir.
|
Griseus
Solar Dragons SOLAR FLEET
0
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:47:00 -
[119] - Quote
This is worst idea of the rules ever.
As it was writted before me, this limits to setups to only few really can withstand, like a flagship + pack of same class ships with splitted equal amount of DPS for offensive team, so you won't loose good chunk of your damage. You can no longer rely on any of Command\Logistic\Heavy Tank for defencive, cause all your chains will fall apart.
So there will be less intrigue. Just tank and gank. |
Admiral Goberius
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
4
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:48:00 -
[120] - Quote
Ntrails wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Tbone Johnson wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:There's a lot of good dialogue here and I'd just like to take a second to note that what is helpful is an explanation of "why" you think the idea is bad. "This sucks ur an idiot" really doesn't provide anyone with any perspective other than the fact that you're a bad poster.
Theres already 4 pages explaining why when you posted this. The bad poster is U. 4 pages in a 6 page thread. Math. Do you have a single reason why the idea is good? Less interesting set ups mean fewer interesting matches to watch. Without logistics they will be shorter too, which perhaps fulfills some inner desire to appeal to outside of your target audience? The entire logic ccp has offered is 'wouldn't it be cool if...' No. No it isn't cool. It is dumb because it alters the correct/perfect tactics in an uninteresting way. What does it add? It pisses off the guy who doesn't get to play. It pisses off a team for losing to something that is non-involving. It doesn't add anything for an audience to enjoy beyond discussion of whether the right ship was banned. You want to have a discussion of why it is bad, then put yourself out there and suggest why on earth you think it is good. That way the terrible posters can illustrate why you are wrong whilst mashing their keyboard angrily. Change for changes sake is not a good argument.
it makes for a lot more strategical options for both team FCs and the people who theorycraft setups
instead of planning the perfect team, you plan the one that can rely on missing a key ship, or you can gamble on your opponents picking the wrong ship to ban
suddenly choosing how to balance ecm and dps becomes a lot more complicated because having a dps ship banned will leave you without any offence
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |