Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 13 post(s) |
XPistolX
Muppet Factory Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:50:00 -
[121] - Quote
I think it's CCP way to bring to the AT that wonderful experience that is spending hours of our time making isk, then another huge amount of time getting ready to an epic fleet fight and when the time comes, you don't even load the grid before u die. It's basically the same thing, but you will waste way more time theorycrafting and testing setups.
If we are used to perish with a boner everyday, why not bring this unique experience to the AT?
|
Raimo
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
0
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:52:00 -
[122] - Quote
Raimo wrote:+1 The implementation of the "banning" idea as currently presented is very bad.
Ok to reiterate quicly *why* I think the current implementation is bad as requested
- No logis ever, do what Gobs suggested (logis should be immune or a variation of that) - alternatively no e-celebs or e-villains (the Shamises and Garmons, even DHB Wildcats and Rives)
- Many of the players in the more ambitious teams invest a ton of time to the preparation of the AT and in many cases have to reschedule their work and personal/family lives to make practices and matches fit... Just to get banned from entering the match. Quite demotivational tbh.
And most importantly, what a lot of people (including many PL) have been saying, this would definitely create *less* intricate and interesting setups, and favour the teams that are on top already (like PL and probably the whole top 10 of last year, to an extenct) where no single *player* is pivotal to the team.
So IMHO something should be done to the rule, remove it or modify it to be less silly but do it quick so we can get on theorycrafting! :D |
Admiral Goberius
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
4
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:54:00 -
[123] - Quote
well you could still have the fc on the field in some unfitted vigil or something, so only the ship is banned |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
90
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:55:00 -
[124] - Quote
Mr Rive wrote: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...
By variety of opinion I mean seeing what happens when you guys go to bed and more than 3 alliances give feedback. |
|
Ntrails
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:55:00 -
[125] - Quote
Admiral Goberius wrote:
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
no, it makes for LESS strategic options. You have to remove the chance to get ****** with an inconvenient ban.
if there were 30 good setups before there are now 15 less. |
DHB WildCat
Flash Over. WE FORM VOLTRON
14
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:57:00 -
[126] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Mr Rive wrote: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... By variety of opinion I mean seeing what happens when you guys go to bed and more than 3 alliances give feedback.
EULA! |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
90
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:57:00 -
[127] - 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
No, I'm not looking for a way to make it better unless you want to offer it. What you posted is pretty much exactly the type of responses that are useful. |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
90
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:58:00 -
[128] - Quote
DHB WildCat wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Mr Rive wrote: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... By variety of opinion I mean seeing what happens when you guys go to bed and more than 3 alliances give feedback. EULA!
Are you trying to force me to explain that ban means from the match and not from the game or something I don't get the joke please deliver the punchline. :( |
|
Tyrrax Thorrk
Guiding Hand Social Club Dystopia Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:59:00 -
[129] - Quote
3 alliances ? p. sure it's more like 20 by now and the only person in favor is probably trolling (hi gob) |
Slapnuts McGee
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
15
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 19:00:00 -
[130] - Quote
Admiral Goberius wrote:if you could ban 1 player in a football game you would always pick the goalkeeper
I'd ban the QB.
Seereres' post could be summed up as: "We didn't really think about what this would mean, we just had an idea and decided to roll with it. Now we'd like you to do our thinking for us and tell us why this is a bad idea."
I'd like to propose you do the opposite Sgree, tell us why this is a good idea. |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
90
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 19:00:00 -
[131] - Quote
Tyrrax Thorrk wrote:3 alliances ? p. sure it's more like 20 by now and the only person in favor is probably trolling (hi gob)
ugh don't make me count |
|
Raimo
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
0
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 19:00:00 -
[132] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Are you trying to force me to explain that ban means from the match and not from the game or something I don't get the joke please deliver the punchline. :(
He's getting massive reps already don't feed it :D |
Admiral Goberius
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
4
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 19:00:00 -
[133] - Quote
sreegs why not just make logis unbannable? then this idea makes sense |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
90
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 19:01:00 -
[134] - Quote
Slapnuts McGee wrote:Admiral Goberius wrote:if you could ban 1 player in a football game you would always pick the goalkeeper I'd ban the QB. Seereres' post could be summed up as: "We didn't really think about what this would mean, we just had an idea and decided to roll with it. Now we'd like you to do our thinking for us and tell us why this is a bad idea." I'd like to propose you do the opposite Sgree, tell us why this is a good idea.
This is for you guys to argue guy. |
|
the Radz
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
1
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 19:01:00 -
[135] - Quote
if ccp absolutely must have the ban rule, how about ; You give the other team a list of 20 ships, 10min before the match, they can remove 2 ships from the list and you have to field a setup with the remaining 18.
The list would have the normal tourny rules (ie you can physicaly field 3 drakes so your list could include 3 drakes)
This allows for redundancy (ie listing command ships twice) and you could also list one of each logi (as you can only field one logi)
-Adds to the theorycrafting on matchday(listing multiple lineups/ ships having to include atlernatives or 'baitable' ships in your list of 20 etc) -listing 10 armour ships and 10 shield ships etc etc. lots of possibilities with theorycrafting (and metagaming) -Doesn't remove a player from the game as they can 'reship' before the match starts.
downside, gives the other team 10minutes to change the entire setup to counter what you listed. I can't see this being a problem with the better alliances but some of the smaller guys may have trouble. (but hey, this is a tournament afterall)
just adding to the crazy idea. |
|
CCP Zirnitra
C C P C C P Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 19:03:00 -
[136] - Quote
The EULA has nothing to do with this. This is an event run, with a clear set of rules announced well in advance. It is your choice to compete in the tournament, but by doing so you accept that you will follow the rules for the tournament.
The Banning EULA is for account suspension, where for the reasons stated within, CCP may revoke your access to the game, and does not apply to the Alliance Tournament.
And if you insist, I would point you to sections 25 and 26 of the Terms of Service, that you accepted when you created your account and installed the game. |
|
Slapnuts McGee
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
15
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 19:03:00 -
[137] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Slapnuts McGee wrote:Admiral Goberius wrote:if you could ban 1 player in a football game you would always pick the goalkeeper I'd ban the QB. Seereres' post could be summed up as: "We didn't really think about what this would mean, we just had an idea and decided to roll with it. Now we'd like you to do our thinking for us and tell us why this is a bad idea." I'd like to propose you do the opposite Sgree, tell us why this is a good idea. This is for you guys to argue guy. There is no one here other than you and gobby (who's trolling) that has said this is a good idea. So having us argue is just going to be going around and circles.
It's like having the Palin family argue about what they love about Obama, buddy. |
Mr Rive
Rens 911 GoonSwarm
28
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 19:04:00 -
[138] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Tyrrax Thorrk wrote:3 alliances ? p. sure it's more like 20 by now and the only person in favor is probably trolling (hi gob) ugh don't make me count
I stopped at 20 :3 |
Admiral Goberius
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
4
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 19:05:00 -
[139] - Quote
Tyrrax Thorrk wrote:3 alliances ? p. sure it's more like 20 by now and the only person in favor is probably trolling (hi gob)
you are just hating on DJ because he is black (ingame)
|
Terianna Eri
Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn
0
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 19:05:00 -
[140] - Quote
Reposting this from the devblog thread:
The banning mechanic is the worst thing I've seen in my entire life. (not really)
What nonsense is this? A player spends weeks practicing and millions and millions of isk on ships, hardwirings, the highend dread ammo, the whole nine yards, and sets time out of their day to show up...
... and is told at the last second that they don't get to play because the other team doesn't like them?
That's not fun. It's not fun for the players who get banned, it's not fun for the teams involved (there's nothing fun about telling someone else "no, you're not allowed to play" unless you're literally a sociopath), it's boring to cast, and it's boring to watch. What are you going to do, say "oh look, ANOTHER team banned the other player's logistic ship, that's only the 20th time we've seen that happen this tournament!"
Honestly. Who thought this was a good idea? How did you get hired? Why are you (presumably) still employed? Did you put the slightest bit of thought into this whatsoever or did you just say "HAY U NO WAT WULD BE FUNNAY XDDDDDDDDD" ?
P.S. was the machariel/rook/curse fleet that LAWN fielded that year so threatening that you needed to pretty much specifically ban it? Because now fleets that are like "one or two main ships + support" are affected so much harder by this change that it makes them pretty much unviable.
Here's an alternative idea: Whatever one team chooses to ban, the other team can choose that many points worth of ships to ban. So if team A wants to ban a T3 from team B, team B can ban THREE STEALTH BOMBERS from team A. Sure, it's not as fun (because more pilots can be excluded) but it makes banning a more interesting, and more costly decision - since the first team to pick can ban only one pilot, but the second team can ban as many pilots as they are allowed the points for. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |