| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Jupacha
The Marauding Asha'men
Important Internet Spaceship League
   |
Posted - 2010.06.17 14:14:00 -
[1]
Things that I think would make the AT more exciting.
1. Dev hack the teams in 15+ AUs away, then when CCP Claw says "go" they warp to the arena. This way you dont know what on the field till you are in combat. This would help keep tension high and FCs on their toes.
2. Seed the brackets by points lost instead of points gained. This might only work in Round 3.
3. Possibly have a defender/attacker scenario. One team camps a gate, the other team has to jump into them.
4. Even the skill point distribution, intra-team. If you field a 10 man team you can't bring more then 100 ships points and 200 mil aggregate SP. Just to spice it up.
5. Keep rebalancing point costs and ship count. This definitely keeps the action and setups fresh.
6. Maybe make the flagship the only BS that a team can field.
7. Let the winners decide which prize out of a prize pool. I only say this because I would rather have an Utu then the cruiser hull.
8. Possibly have the commentator hopefuls commentate a match to see if they actually know what they are talking about before flying them to Iceland? I don't really care but this seems to be a popular idea in game on on the forums.
9. Keep up the "this isn't about money" angle. Flagships kind of dented this philosophy with the deadspace/officer mods but the banning of pirate imps and T2 rigs and such make it more about skill and less about wallet, which is good.
I'm sure I forgot somethings but the trolls will take care of that for me.
-- Because Internet Spaceships are a BDEAL -- |
Grunanca
Final Agony
B A N E
|
Posted - 2010.06.17 15:07:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Jupacha
Things that I think would make the AT more exciting.
1. Dev hack the teams in 15+ AUs away, then when CCP Claw says "go" they warp to the arena. This way you dont know what on the field till you are in combat. This would help keep tension high and FCs on their toes.
They already do
2. Seed the brackets by points lost instead of points gained. This might only work in Round 3.
Only way to prevent cheating is by giving people the worst opponent from winning. Anything that doesnt require your best for the best outcome will always be aused
3. Possibly have a defender/attacker scenario. One team camps a gate, the other team has to jump into them.
Just no! Would ruing pretty much all tactics but close range dps
4. Even the skill point distribution, intra-team. If you field a 10 man team you can't bring more then 100 ships points and 200 mil aggregate SP. Just to spice it up.
NO! This would mean people would have to have an alliance turnament alt account, just to be able to field the team they want.
5. Keep rebalancing point costs and ship count. This definitely keeps the action and setups fresh.
6. Maybe make the flagship the only BS that a team can field.
7. Let the winners decide which prize out of a prize pool. I only say this because I would rather have an Utu then the cruiser hull.
8. Possibly have the commentator hopefuls commentate a match to see if they actually know what they are talking about before flying them to Iceland? I don't really care but this seems to be a popular idea in game on on the forums.
9. Keep up the "this isn't about money" angle. Flagships kind of dented this philosophy with the deadspace/officer mods but the banning of pirate imps and T2 rigs and such make it more about skill and less about wallet, which is good.
Agree
I'm sure I forgot somethings but the trolls will take care of that for me.
|
Gorjer
Shut Up And Play
WE FORM VOLTRON
|
Posted - 2010.06.17 15:34:00 -
[3]
Sounds dreadful, i think the wormhole idea was far superior. What ruined it for me mainly was the skill point cap of 200 mill, which is the most hilarious thing in the world.
|
QwaarJet
Gallente
hirr
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.06.17 15:52:00 -
[4]
Quote:
3. Possibly have a defender/attacker scenario. One team camps a gate, the other team has to jump into them.
Stopped taking it seriously there.
|
Jupacha
The Marauding Asha'men
Important Internet Spaceship League
|
Posted - 2010.06.17 17:13:00 -
[5]
These are not suppose to be a package deal, just options.
Take what you want leave the rest.
-- Because Internet Spaceships are a BDEAL -- |
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2010.06.17 17:31:00 -
[6]
Remember that whatever you suggest has to work in a televised environment.
At the moment this means having the ships on grid so the camera ships can lock them (so warping or jumping in is out) and anything that would break locks has to be banned (mini-warping in the arena, cloaking).
Historically Claw and co have tweaked the ship point costs each time so that is pretty likely for AT9. They might decide to ban remote rep modules or some other tweak too. There is also scope for finer grained point values (half points or similar) or even to add faction modules etc into the points system but those would make checking the legality of a setup more tricky to do quickly (we don't want any more 101 point setups being detected after the match).
I might get into dodgy ground if I talk about commentator selection  but it would be interesting to consider part of the interview stage being to commentate on a staged fight for a few minutes. Logistically that would be a fair bit of work though and involves streaming or having to get people setup on sisi etc. Of course people improve with practice and being on site many of the issues are removed. I'm sure this weekend will be great 
TeaDaze.net Blog | CSM Database |
Narciss Sevar
Caldari
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.06.17 20:41:00 -
[7]
I'd like to see a change to a 1000 point system. This would allow for more flexibility between ship types in a class.
|
Morvyn
Destry's Lounge
Important Internet Spaceship League
|
Posted - 2010.06.17 20:56:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Jupacha
1. Dev hack the teams in 15+ AUs away, then when CCP Claw says "go" they warp to the arena. This way you dont know what on the field till you are in combat. This would help keep tension high and FCs on their toes.
Although I like this in theory, there are a few problems in implementation:
- Warping from out of scanner range means you would hit the arena with some reduced cap (this obviously matters more for tiny ships than it does for a battleship).
- As is, even if one WEREN'T able to look at the opposing team before warping to the arena, once you arrive at the arena you have to sit there for a good 30 seconds - 1 minute or so for the cameras to lock you and for Claw to get everything ready to go.
Originally by: Jupacha
2. Seed the brackets by points lost instead of points gained. This might only work in Round 3.
It makes it easier to abuse the bracket placement if this is done, and that's a bad thing. That, combined with the fact that I don't really see how this would make it any more exciting (wouldn't it just promote pure gank fits - so that you could demolish the enemy team but lose enough ships such that you would get a nice easy opponent next round?).
Originally by: Jupacha
3. Possibly have a defender/attacker scenario. One team camps a gate, the other team has to jump into them.
Meh. I don't really like the gate idea, and something that might potentially be exciting like, perhaps, a capture-the-flag type scenario, would be really hard to implement.
Originally by: Jupacha
4. Even the skill point distribution, intra-team. If you field a 10 man team you can't bring more then 100 ships points and 200 mil aggregate SP. Just to spice it up.
No. If you train for something specifically it isn't really hard to get good at it (SP-wise). I.e., if you have more than 20-30mil SP (ish) then you are no longer training to be better at some existing thing, you are training to do a wider variety of things. Therefore, capping the SP on pilots would just be annoying and would serve no purpose.
Originally by: Jupacha
6. Maybe make the flagship the only BS that a team can field.
Meh.
Originally by: Jupacha
7. Let the winners decide which prize out of a prize pool. I only say this because I would rather have an Utu then the cruiser hull.
Agreed.
Originally by: Jupacha
9. Keep up the "this isn't about money" angle. Flagships kind of dented this philosophy with the deadspace/officer mods but the banning of pirate imps and T2 rigs and such make it more about skill and less about wallet, which is good.
Agreed.
Originally by: TeaDaze
Remember that whatever you suggest has to work in a televised environment.
At the moment this means having the ships on grid so the camera ships can lock them (so warping or jumping in is out) and anything that would break locks has to be banned (mini-warping in the arena, cloaking).
The lock-breaking problem could possibly be solved if the commentators used a more watchlist-like method, instead of target locks...? Just a thought.
Originally by: TeaDaze
I might get into dodgy ground if I talk about commentator selection but it would be interesting to consider part of the interview stage being to commentate on a staged fight for a few minutes. Logistically that would be a fair bit of work though and involves streaming or having to get people setup on sisi etc. Of course people improve with practice and being on site many of the issues are removed. I'm sure this weekend will be great
CCP could always just record an existing fight and have potential commentators commentate that. Would remove some of the difficulty, anyway. Although, to be fair, I've honestly never had a big problem with the commentators - sure they occasionally make some lame mistake nobody cares about, but I have no idea what they are doing that warrants the amount of *****ing I see on the forums.
Also - long post is long. 
Originally by: SkeDOOSH
They are godless killing machines that put even grizzly bears to shame.
|
Deva Blackfire
Shut Up And Play
WE FORM VOLTRON
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 01:06:00 -
[9]
From my POV:
1. get rid of stupid 60days-in-alliance rule. Just set it "person may only join one team for duration of an AT" so it stops team hopping.
2. flagships need to be more expensive than the ship class they belong to. Properly fit flagship can easily outdo 1,5-2x its own point cost on the field.
3. id personally love to see more "one ship type" rushes - like old 10 thorax gang. Maybe make it 5x for t1 hull 3x for faction/t2/t3? Or just for cruisers/frigs? (yeh 5 drakes would be boring) Or maybe every ship of same type costs 20%/40%/60% more progression (or other numbers ya want). Hard caps arent fun IMO.
4. similiar to 3 - maybe limit remote reppers per team not "only on one ship". Say 2large/4med/8small (or w/ever numbers ya want) per team (not per ship) - so they can be distibuted around.
|
Gorjer
Shut Up And Play
WE FORM VOLTRON
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 06:21:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Jupacha
4. Even the skill point distribution, intra-team. If you field a 10 man team you can't bring more then 100 ships points and 200 mil aggregate SP. Just to spice it up.
So you want team's like Dystopia to be limited to fielding like 2 man teams -_-
|
|
|
Gorjer
Shut Up And Play
WE FORM VOLTRON
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 07:37:00 -
[11]
~~~
|
Seldarine
Minmatar
Shut Up And Play
WE FORM VOLTRON
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 07:40:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Jupacha
4. Even the skill point distribution, intra-team. If you field a 10 man team you can't bring more then 100 ships points and 200 mil aggregate SP. Just to spice it up.
but but but...... if you talk to a noob about how many skills points you have they immediately spurt BUT SKILL POINTS DON'T MATTER
______________________________
Seldarine
|
|
CCP Claw
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 10:14:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Narciss Sevar
I'd like to see a change to a 1000 point system. This would allow for more flexibility between ship types in a class.
I've talked about this a few times and I'm pretty sure it's going to happen. Points need more granularity.
Originally by: Deva Blackfire
From my POV:
1. get rid of stupid 60days-in-alliance rule. Just set it "person may only join one team for duration of an AT" so it stops team hopping.
This rule is likely not going anywhere. It solved most of the undesirable things with tournament teams.
Other things I have in mind right now:
Refining the flagship rules
Rebalancing the midrange points costs (Cruisers-BCs-HACs)
More ship class specifics (like we did for t1/t2 bcs)
|
|
Keitaro Baka
Babylon Scientific and Industrial Enterprises
Babylon Project
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 10:21:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Narciss Sevar
I'd like to see a change to a 1000 point system. This would allow for more flexibility between ship types in a class.
Eventhough basically every AT at least one team has shown they can't count to 100, I still fully support this.
Also there should be a rule that let's the clawhammer do what he likes, but let clever loophole ninjas that stay within the general concept of the alliance tournament have their fun! ;)
Also have 3 commentators per match, so we can have 2 idiots for the roflcommentary (yay, maybe have one drunk?) and one to correct them if they really frell up :)
All the above is prolly crap
Drone Guide
|
steave435
Caldari
Final Agony
B A N E
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 10:25:00 -
[15]
Quote:
1. Dev hack the teams in 15+ AUs away, then when CCP Claw says "go" they warp to the arena. This way you dont know what on the field till you are in combat. This would help keep tension high and FCs on their toes.
3. Possibly have a defender/attacker scenario. One team camps a gate, the other team has to jump into them.
Need time to set cameras up, nope.
Quote:
2. Seed the brackets by points lost instead of points gained. This might only work in Round 3.
Or just make do it by matching 1 VS 32, 2 VS 31 etc for winners and 33 VS 64, 34 VS 63 etc for losers, just like when seeding the elimination rounds. You'd then want to get a good result in order to get to face someone that almost lost the first time.
Quote:
4. Even the skill point distribution, intra-team. If you field a 10 man team you can't bring more then 100 ships points and 200 mil aggregate SP. Just to spice it up.
Hell no, not even elaborating on this one.
Quote:
5. Keep rebalancing point costs and ship count. This definitely keeps the action and setups fresh.
Ofc...
Quote:
6. Maybe make the flagship the only BS that a team can field.
Would make it extremely boring with just a bunch of BC fleets everywhere.
Quote:
7. Let the winners decide which prize out of a prize pool. I only say this because I would rather have an Utu then the cruiser hull.
Oh yes.
Quote:
8. Possibly have the commentator hopefuls commentate a match to see if they actually know what they are talking about before flying them to Iceland? I don't really care but this seems to be a popular idea in game on on the forums.
Agreed
Quote:
9. Keep up the "this isn't about money" angle. Flagships kind of dented this philosophy with the deadspace/officer mods but the banning of pirate imps and T2 rigs and such make it more about skill and less about wallet, which is good.
Yeah, this year a ton of isk can buy you the ability to field tons of expensive faction ships and a great flagship, but since the point system works the way it does, people that can't afford that can simply field more cheaper ships to make up for it, so it balances out. Allot of isk is an advantage, but not a huge one, so I'm fine with it.
Quote:
1. get rid of stupid 60days-in-alliance rule. Just set it "person may only join one team for duration of an AT" so it stops team hopping.
Still could allow an alliance to field multiple teams, but simply adjusting the rule to "must have been in before the tournament starts" should be enough so that if that's done, players that haven't played yet can't switch team once the team they got put in starts doing badly. If an alliance want to split into 2 teams, they have to decide who goes into what team for the entire tournament before it starts.
|
Grunanca
Final Agony
B A N E
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 10:45:00 -
[16]
Originally by: CCP Claw
Originally by: Narciss Sevar
I'd like to see a change to a 1000 point system. This would allow for more flexibility between ship types in a class.
I've talked about this a few times and I'm pretty sure it's going to happen. Points need more granularity.
Originally by: Deva Blackfire
From my POV:
1. get rid of stupid 60days-in-alliance rule. Just set it "person may only join one team for duration of an AT" so it stops team hopping.
This rule is likely not going anywhere. It solved most of the undesirable things with tournament teams.
Other things I have in mind right now:
Refining the flagship rules
Rebalancing the midrange points costs (Cruisers-BCs-HACs)
More ship class specifics (like we did for t1/t2 bcs)
All while the 60 day rule has made 50% of our alliance unable to paticipate, because the corp joined about 35 hours too late. It might solve some problems, but in the end it also hurts a lot of alliances. Why not just make it so you can only paticipate with 1 team? and then maybe make it so that if you lose both qualifying rounds, you cant compete next year. That way you can atleast take some of the teams out(like Erebus that couldnt even field a team) and make space for more serious teams.
|
Lensie
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 13:51:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Grunanca
All while the 60 day rule has made 50% of our alliance unable to paticipate, because the corp joined about 35 hours too late. It might solve some problems, but in the end it also hurts a lot of alliances. Why not just make it so you can only paticipate with 1 team? and then maybe make it so that if you lose both qualifying rounds, you cant compete next year. That way you can atleast take some of the teams out(like Erebus that couldnt even field a team) and make space for more serious teams.
I don't like the "lose two matches and you can't compete next year rule" idea since losing two matches can happen to most teams if you get unlucky with the setups.
However, if you don't show up at all it would indeed be a fitting punishment. And as you said it will free up slots for serious teams.
|
A HOBO
Kangaroos With Frickin Lazerbeams
Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2010.06.19 01:33:00 -
[18]
perhaps if u get in the 1000 points system some deviation in the points requirement of the t1 class tiers similer to what has been done with the bc's, treat faction or t2 as an upgrade over the std t1 huls e.g. base t1 hull cost + faction upgrade/t2 upgrade = total cost.
essentially itd change the way ships are selected and open up opportunities to field ships that have never been seen in the alliance tourneys before.
thered stll be a need to have a seperate pirate faction listing but since thier buff they realy are a class of thier own.
|
Ruiner Drudge
|
Posted - 2010.06.19 01:52:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Jupacha
2. Seed the brackets by points lost instead of points gained. This might only work in Round 3.
I might be reading this incorrectly. But this would make it more important to not lose ships than destroy them. It would make all of the teams focus on defence rather than offence, which would make the tournament horribly boring.
I'd rather see teams absolutely obliterate eachother in an attempt to gain maximum points than play it safe so they don't lose any.
|
Gumdrop
|
Posted - 2010.06.19 01:56:00 -
[20]
I always thought it was weird how this tourney is only for alliances yet they dont use capital ships at all which is what you think of when you think of alliances.
|
|
|
Monk Fish
|
Posted - 2010.06.19 02:18:00 -
[21]
4. Even the skill point distribution, intra-team. If you field a 10 man team you can't bring more then 100 ships points and 200 mil aggregate SP. Just to spice it up.
I have no problem with messing around with ship points, and maybe changing them from round to round, ie round 1 : 50 points, round 2 150 points, round 3 100 points. However I am not in favour of SP limiting as there is already an effective sp limit by virtue of the max skills, and in most cases a few skillz at level 4 makes very little diffrence compaired to all level 5. (some more than other). However, by setting SP limits you make the proccess more complex to manage, and you might block people like my self for being able to play, not that anybody would care about that mind except me, however consider Tyrax, he is a character and adds a bit of theater to the games, however if he has say 100m sp's what the hell is his team gona do? even if most of his SP were in Mining and industry it would still be almost imposible for that toon to take part, and it would be a pain in the ass for FC's to keep track of who has skills in what and by what ammounts never mind the ammount of work generated to track it for the GM's.
On the subject of flagships, I like 'em and think there keepers. Sure tweek them but I think there a good and working concept.
I would like to see negitive points awarded to a team if they self destruct, as its not much fun to watch after the first time.
|
So Sensational
GREY COUNCIL
Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2010.06.19 03:06:00 -
[22]
Edited by: So Sensational on 19/06/2010 03:09:14
Originally by: Jupacha
Things that I think would make the AT more exciting.
1. Dev hack the teams in 15+ AUs away, then when CCP Claw says "go" they warp to the arena. This way you dont know what on the field till you are in combat. This would help keep tension high and FCs on their toes.
Cool idea, has it's problems. Cap usage, lag etc. Can be adjusted though, warp to field, wait 5-10 seconds (I don't know for how long they sit on the field before a match now, seems to be much moar than that though) then start it up. Make sure you let the commentators know what ships they're flying before the warp so they can report them the second they hit the field, this last part is only doable on Iceland though, for obvious reasons.
Originally by: Jupacha
3. Possibly have a defender/attacker scenario. One team camps a gate, the other team has to jump into them
I like it, but only if you do it twice per round, team 1 vs team 2 gets to play both scenarios.
Originally by: Jupacha
4. Even the skill point distribution, intra-team. If you field a 10 man team you can't bring more then 100 ships points and 200 mil aggregate SP. Just to spice it up.
Naw, this is easily solved by putting the right pilots in the right ships and it's far too limiting for teams with veteran players.
Originally by: Jupacha
7. Let the winners decide which prize out of a prize pool. I only say this because I would rather have an Utu then the cruiser hull.
Larger prize variety = Good times.
Originally by: Jupacha
9. Keep up the "this isn't about money" angle. Flagships kind of dented this philosophy with the deadspace/officer mods but the banning of pirate imps and T2 rigs and such make it more about skill and less about wallet, which is good.
I agree with this point, it would be SensationalÖ if they expanded the Flagship aspect actually, they could do so much more with it. An idea would be to remove player submitted flagships (Thus removing the money aspect) and instead add a range of different CCP created Flagships with actual Flagship potential, say special paintjob, special icon, special lore, special anything. The tournament happens rarely enough to justify having one person from the creative team write a back story and pick a name, at the very least.
Then you let the teams pick one each after the qualifiers. Top ranked team gets to pick first, make sure the ships are balanced, the only reason you pick one over another is because it fits with the group synergy you have planned. Sure, the opposing team knows what you pick but you know what they pick too, there's also more than one round after the qualifiers so you aren't stuck with your flagship+team setup. And then, then you let the winning team keep it assuming it survives throughout the tournament. After it's all over you write a chronicle about it, you make a news report about it, you do anything to immortalize it somehow. Anything to increase player interaction with, and player impact on the EVE universe is a good thing if implemented correctly.
|
Stick Cult
Unspoken Autonomy.
|
Posted - 2010.06.19 03:44:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Gumdrop
I always thought it was weird how this tourney is only for alliances yet they dont use capital ships at all which is what you think of when you think of alliances.
Wanna watch a couple dreads fight? No, you really don't.
/sleeps
Huh? Match is over? Took 'em long enough.
Can't remember what it was called, but sometime on Week 2, 2 heavily tanked teams, and they basicly didn't do anything. It would be worse.
Originally by: CCP Tuxford
my bad.
Rest assured I'm being ridiculed by my co-workers.
|
Minigin
Trinity Corp
WE FORM VOLTRON
|
Posted - 2010.06.19 04:08:00 -
[24]
Originally by: CCP Claw
Originally by: Narciss Sevar
I'd like to see a change to a 1000 point system. This would allow for more flexibility between ship types in a class.
I've talked about this a few times and I'm pretty sure it's going to happen. Points need more granularity.
Originally by: Deva Blackfire
From my POV:
1. get rid of stupid 60days-in-alliance rule. Just set it "person may only join one team for duration of an AT" so it stops team hopping.
This rule is likely not going anywhere. It solved most of the undesirable things with tournament teams.
Other things I have in mind right now:
Refining the flagship rules
Rebalancing the midrange points costs (Cruisers-BCs-HACs)
More ship class specifics (like we did for t1/t2 bcs)
id also like to suggest stuff like stacking points for ships with ewar bonuses or logistics bonuses.
eg. start off saying if you want to field 1 logistics its worth x amount of points, but if you want to field two the forumula is something like x + (new number of points) times by the additional number of that style ship whether it be logistics or ewar.
would make people really consider where to spend their points and potentialy bring out a lot of new and interesting setups.
.
THE ORIGINAL COLOUR POSTER!
Revisal > Nice job trying to troll me but luckily I'm smarter than you. :D |
Nakatomi Kamatori
|
Posted - 2010.06.19 15:06:00 -
[25]
I would like to see the tournament split into several classes, some could be very limited isk wise, so that more teams can compete and the money available to each team doesn't matter, while some classes are more open, where most things are allowed.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |