Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 14 post(s) |
Atiana Obaani
Tomoe Laboratories Celestial Imperative
|
Posted - 2009.06.25 04:19:00 -
[61]
Originally by: CCP Claw Please keep this thread to rules related discussions.
WORD! Let's talk about the rules. So why are named T1 and normal T2 modules allowed but not COSMOS, which are on par? |
Verlokiraptor
All Around Research Inc Onslaught.
|
Posted - 2009.06.25 08:06:00 -
[62]
Edited by: Verlokiraptor on 25/06/2009 08:08:31 Just looking for clarification:
1. Black ops are not allowed for whatever reason? 2. Probe launchers are allowed? Can probe launchers be used before the match starts, to find out where the enemy are warping in from and what they are bringing? Probes aren't targeted and aren't exactly aggressive. 3. Are cynos and bubbles allowed? Again, it doesn't say otherwise but I thought it had excluded those in the past.
EDIT: From what I can see, many COSMOS mods are almost identical to T2 except with far less fitting requirements... how is that "on par"!? |
Atiana Obaani
Tomoe Laboratories Celestial Imperative
|
Posted - 2009.06.25 08:46:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Verlokiraptor Edited by: Verlokiraptor on 25/06/2009 08:08:31 Just looking for clarification:
1. Black ops are not allowed for whatever reason? 2. Probe launchers are allowed? Can probe launchers be used before the match starts, to find out where the enemy are warping in from and what they are bringing? Probes aren't targeted and aren't exactly aggressive. 3. Are cynos and bubbles allowed? Again, it doesn't say otherwise but I thought it had excluded those in the past.
EDIT: From what I can see, many COSMOS mods are almost identical to T2 except with far less fitting requirements... how is that "on par"!?
SOME cosmos mods have far less fitting requirements. Those that do are also generally not as good as named T1 and in many cases not nearly as good as T2, they just make some space for interesting fits.
T2 almost ALWAYS takes the cake over COSMOS, which is the reason for the gripe. |
Verlokiraptor
All Around Research Inc Onslaught.
|
Posted - 2009.06.25 11:28:00 -
[64]
Edited by: Verlokiraptor on 25/06/2009 11:30:47 For large armor reps, cap rechargers and EANMs they're identical to tech 2 except with much lower fitting. A cosmos damage control is better than meta 4 for low CPU ships. The hull repper (Edit: and quite importantly the MWDs) kicks ass compared to tech 2. I'm not going to go on, because there's no point. |
Avatoin
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 03:44:00 -
[65]
HACs should be reduced a point or two and T1 cruiser should also be reduced one point because I am sure that a even a tier 1 BC is more valuable than a T1 cruiser, also because a ship is limited to only 2 per team, the tactics of having a bunch of t1 cruisers buzzing around the field would change a lot, mainly for the worst. |
Goberth Ludwig
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 01:46:00 -
[66]
so are black ops allowed or not???
- Gob
|
Goberth Ludwig
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.06.30 20:24:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Goberth Ludwig so are black ops allowed or not???
- Gob
hello calmdown anyone home? ^^
- Gob
|
|
CCP Soundwave
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 01:08:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Goberth Ludwig
Originally by: Goberth Ludwig so are black ops allowed or not???
- Gob
hello calmdown anyone home? ^^
- Gob
Sorry guys, CCP Claw is out of the office, he should resume frantically f5ing this thread next week :)
|
|
Templayer
Amarr Monks of War
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 06:58:00 -
[69]
I correctly understand that there is no - "first come - first serve" basis ? We are thrown to pure luck?
|
|
CCP Claw
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 17:08:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Goberth Ludwig so are black ops allowed or not???
Yep, they will be in, likely at 1 point underneath battleships.
I've been really agonizing over and discussing the entire points list for a few weeks with some of my colleagues, and will be doing an update - as well as some rules clarifications/changes - early next week when I'm back in the office.
Originally by: Templayer I correctly understand that there is no - "first come - first serve" basis ? We are thrown to pure luck?
Yes, lady luck is back as the only truly 'fair' way of deciding team entry.
|
|
|
Vault Overseer
Followers of the Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2009.07.04 18:27:00 -
[71]
Originally by: CCP Claw
Originally by: Templayer I correctly understand that there is no - "first come - first serve" basis ? We are thrown to pure luck?
Yes, lady luck is back as the only truly 'fair' way of deciding team entry.
and how do you prevent people from signing up with 100 alliances to get a better chance? (i know you have to pay lots of iskies to create that many alliances, but who cares?) ---- enemy of the Children of the Cathedral |
Trimutius III
Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.05 16:58:00 -
[72]
Edited by: Trimutius III on 05/07/2009 17:01:43 Edited by: Trimutius III on 05/07/2009 16:59:42
Originally by: Vault Overseer
and how do you prevent people from signing up with 100 alliances to get a better chance? (i know you have to pay lots of iskies to create that many alliances, but who cares?)
Probability of such operation take place is like almost zero, so i don't think that this chance is significant enough to even bother about it... ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius |
Dark Chasm
H A V O C
|
Posted - 2009.07.05 21:44:00 -
[73]
Edited by: Dark Chasm on 05/07/2009 21:49:40 Edited by: Dark Chasm on 05/07/2009 21:49:15 Tech1 normal cruiser need to be 10 instead of 11 (especially since tier1 bc = 11) HAC should be 14 Tech1 faction cruiser should probably be 12 (remember last time it was 9 which was too low, but 13 is a bit over the top) Tech2 BC should be 17, not 16
__________________________________________________________________ ل Don't worry about your beard, when your head is about to be taken لل لللللللللللللللللللللللللللللل- Sun Tzu, The art of War - |
L'Ame Immortelle
Gallente Annihilation.
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 09:29:00 -
[74]
Edited by: L''Ame Immortelle on 06/07/2009 09:34:22
Originally by: CCP Claw
Originally by: Templayer
Can you please clarify if i understand you correctly :
Logistic ship = Strategic cruiser with Reppers bonused subsystem. So you can have only one of them for 1 team?
Yes, so basically we're going to allow one Logistics Cruiser OR one T3 cruiser with logistics modules, once I look at it on Monday.
Can we get an answer about this? The rule wording hasn't changed and it's way past Monday..
Visions of my Mind and Soul |
Trimutius III
Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 13:56:00 -
[75]
Originally by: L'Ame Immortelle
Can we get an answer about this? The rule wording hasn't changed and it's way past Monday..
I personally think the wording should be that remote armor/shield repair should only be allowed on one single ship in your setup.
Monday is today and in Iceland it's afternoon... So i think we should wait few hours and then write angry notes... if nothing changes... ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius |
L'Ame Immortelle
Gallente Annihilation.
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 15:12:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Trimutius III Monday is today and in Iceland it's afternoon... So i think we should wait few hours and then write angry notes... if nothing changes...
Nothing angry, just wanted clarification - and his comment about Monday was from a month ago :)
Visions of my Mind and Soul |
Trimutius III
Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 17:20:00 -
[77]
Edited by: Trimutius III on 06/07/2009 17:20:20
Originally by: L'Ame Immortelle
Nothing angry, just wanted clarification - and his comment about Monday was from a month ago :)
He said that early this weak everything will be there... So i think on Sunday we may ask what he mean "early this weak"... hehe ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius |
Glarion Garnier
The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 13:40:00 -
[78]
I would add tech 2 haulers as well at 6-8 points.
This time around the turnament seems to be the most interesting ever. Thanks to what is available for choosing. _________________________________ -be vary of the men behind the curtain-
|
Trimutius III
Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.12 21:03:00 -
[79]
Originally by: CCP Claw
I've been really agonizing over and discussing the entire points list for a few weeks with some of my colleagues, and will be doing an update - as well as some rules clarifications/changes - early next week when I'm back in the office.
So Sunday is coming to the end... What did u meant saying "early next week"??? ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius |
RobinsGood
|
Posted - 2009.07.13 14:05:00 -
[80]
Is it going to be acceptable to have players participating in the tournament to run more than 1 client to pilot multiple ships simultaneously?
I would like to know if my alliance can have its pilots each using 2 separate characters.
5 people fielding 10 ships. eh?
|
|
Tyrrax Thorrk
Amarr Guiding Hand Social Club Dystopia Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 00:11:00 -
[81]
Originally by: RobinsGood Is it going to be acceptable to have players participating in the tournament to run more than 1 client to pilot multiple ships simultaneously?
I would like to know if my alliance can have its pilots each using 2 separate characters.
5 people fielding 10 ships. eh?
yes you can do that, it's kinda dumb but it's not as if there's anything ccp can do about it (or any reason for them to care)
|
Sashenka
The Fighting Mongooses HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 10:16:00 -
[82]
pretty sure Elliot from G4L was running 3? clients in the last tourney :P _________________________________
TFM - Sashenka |
omgdutch2005
Gallente Advanced Planetary Exports Intergalactic Exports Group
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 12:31:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk
Originally by: RobinsGood Is it going to be acceptable to have players participating in the tournament to run more than 1 client to pilot multiple ships simultaneously?
I would like to know if my alliance can have its pilots each using 2 separate characters.
5 people fielding 10 ships. eh?
yes you can do that, it's kinda dumb but it's not as if there's anything ccp can do about it (or any reason for them to care)
why dumb? if u run 2 screens (like i do :) ), run eve windowed, its not THAT! hard to actually.... dual run :)
|
Trimutius III
Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 21:19:00 -
[84]
Originally by: omgdutch2005
why dumb? if u run 2 screens (like i do :) ), run eve windowed, its not THAT! hard to actually.... dual run :)
Yes it's not really hard... But it's dumb because price is really high, while u switching between windows u may lose the battle, and if there is 1 window per person then everybody have much more concetration and it's really good benefit against multiple windows.
But there is no problem for multiple windows if u don't need as much concentration as possible... I fighted with 3 windows in 0.0 complexes with no problem.
But in tourney the best thing is if every single character is pushed to the limit and fights as good as possible, like 100% or even 110%. But if u fight with 2 windows each ur character perfomance would be not more then 80-90% or even less... And that is far from 100% u need... :) ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius |
Darknesss
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.07.20 21:07:00 -
[85]
Rules look good to me.
|
bloody johnroberts
Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.07.20 21:48:00 -
[86]
new rule added
create alt alliances just to give you a better chance if you dont get in you get the isk back anyway
nice ccp claw well played
also selling your slot seem popular guess we never saw that coming ccp claw
enjoy your degraded and screwed up tourney
|
InnerDrive
Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.07.20 22:22:00 -
[87]
Originally by: bloody johnroberts new rule added
create alt alliances just to give you a better chance if you dont get in you get the isk back anyway
nice ccp claw well played
also selling your slot seem popular guess we never saw that coming ccp claw
enjoy your degraded and screwed up tourney
BJ is bitter, but the essence is right, its rediculously organised the sign up system. People allready have started to sell their slots for profit
|
violator2k5
Poor Old Ornery nOObs Turdz Asshatz N Grieferz
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 02:13:00 -
[88]
from looking at the rules i can see that they are far to limiting.
the use of either a logistical ship or t3 cruiser are the only 2 ships that may employ the use of a remote rep for either shield or armor. Does that mean that the other ships may still be able to fit remote hull reps to hull tank?
even though its not a smart move to hull tank that rule there will set anyone who considers flying a logistics ship to be primary with no form of preservation other then logistical drones which will more then likely be shot down.
what do you think about bending that rule a little bit say only allowing 1 logistical or T3 ship with the ability to remote repair other ships and say 2 other ships the ability to use 1 remote shield or armor rep each to cover the logistics ship a bit better?
|
Andor Traxel
Nebula Rasa Vanguard Nebula Rasa
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 02:35:00 -
[89]
Well much consternation over lady luck and many ideas about how to implement a more fair and balanced Fox like selection process... hmmm
Gripe A. Large and powerful "relevant" alliances need to represented should they desire. Possible solution: Give the 8 largest alliances by total systems held an automatic bid. (8 teams)
Gripe B. Some teams should just be represented. Possible Solution: Have past tournament experts pick (8 teams)
Gripe C 16th place is no where near good enough for an automatic bid, however historically strong teams should be represented. Possible Solution: A top four finish in a past tournament gives that alliance an automatic qualification. (x teams) Gripe D Whats up with the whining, I like lady luck. Possible solution: Let the tinfoil hat pick the rest.
P.S. Did someone mention single elimination??
I would wish all you Pavlov's pod-pilots in the tourney good luck but none of you deserve it. Especially Blades team.... that epic fail with the Ishtar's last tourney should disqualify you for all time.
|
Andor Traxel
Nebula Rasa Vanguard Nebula Rasa
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 04:32:00 -
[90]
I might also mention that publishing the order of reserve teams(Hurray for #10) in combination with the apparent large influx of for profit entries could make tinfoil hat speculators wonder if this is just a version of insider tournament extortion. The alliances that have signed up with no plans to compete seem to have a hot commodity. Although a red matter matter black hole has destroyed all logic, I dare say the rules should have been structured to prevent these corrupt and shady dealings. Instead of saying good luck to the teams that are being extorted, solve the problem by reworking this tournament into a single elimination event open to all confirmed entrants. Then we either have 96 teams take the field or we have x number of teams that want to compete take the field and y number of insider extortion teams that are left paying a 2 billion isk penalty for trying exploit the signup process. It makes one wonder. Of course speculation does nothing to remedy the injustice of the present; only action.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |