| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
Important Internet Spaceship League
   |
Posted - 2011.04.10 02:52:00 -
[1]
So you have players preparing to fight for a long time and plug a whole day out of the calendar (some people have weekend kids, work, family and other things put aside) to participate in this supposedly fun and exciting event and you have the risc oh him getting told he cannot play for no other reason than being famous or flying a cool ship?
It may be interesting for CCP to try create interesting battles but you are actually making it a terrible thing for the players and the spectators. This is like teasing a kid about how great christmas will be and then convert to Islam on the day itself telling him he cannot celebrate christmas anyway???
What is the thought behind this rules and do you really think it will:
1: Make the games more interesting as people don't see what ship is missing?
2: Make people enjoy the tourney as you break the heart of banned players?
3: Create versatile setups as you cannot do anything sophisticated because you WILL be missing a key ship?
I have a feeling people get mostly into boring BC fleets all about the same value so they won't lose much
Pinky Denmark, TCN, BDEAL
-
I'm a nice guy!!
But plz hook me up with some pew pew... |
Brinxter
|
Posted - 2011.04.10 06:22:00 -
[2]
I dislike this rule aswell, for the following reasons;
- It does not promote unique setups, because those are usually pivotal around a few ships, lose one, and it breaks down.
- Since there is only one Logistic ship allowed, people will probably just leave those at home, which sadly promotes stale, uniform fleets.
- If you have either a famous fleet commander, or maybe just one because you are a small alliance, and lose him for that fight, losing the ship he in, isnt even the biggest problem.
- Because you might lose the fleet commander, you are forced to bring a secondary, which means there is one less spot for someone else to be able to fly along with you, which is annoying if you are a big alliance, and want to give everyone a chance to participate.
- So, like Pinky before me said, you have finally made it to the point where you actually get to join a fight in the fabled Alliance Tournament, you prepared for months for it, maybe even took some days off to train, or the fight itself.
And now, the big moment has arrived, you warp in, see your opponent, and you get to leave, without firing a shot...
|
trady mctradsytrade
|
Posted - 2011.04.10 07:13:00 -
[3]
+1 remove banning rule.
|
Freelancer'Spb
Fremen Sietch
DarkSide.
|
Posted - 2011.04.10 07:53:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: CCP Mindstar
ôWouldnÆt it be really funny if that Dominix pilot got sent home before the match started??ö
No it wouldn't be funny at all.
Originally by: Brinxter
I dislike this rule aswell, for the following reasons;
- It does not promote unique setups, because those are usually pivotal around a few ships, lose one, and it breaks down.
- Since there is only one Logistic ship allowed, people will probably just leave those at home, which sadly promotes stale, uniform fleets.
- If you have either a famous fleet commander, or maybe just one because you are a small alliance, and lose him for that fight, losing the ship he in, isnt even the biggest problem.
- Because you might lose the fleet commander, you are forced to bring a secondary, which means there is one less spot for someone else to be able to fly along with you, which is annoying if you are a big alliance, and want to give everyone a chance to participate.
- So, like Pinky before me said, you have finally made it to the point where you actually get to join a fight in the fabled Alliance Tournament, you prepared for months for it, maybe even took some days off to train, or the fight itself.
And now, the big moment has arrived, you warp in, see your opponent, and you get to leave, without firing a shot...
Agreed.
CCP - if the reason is in forcing to fight more intensive - just ban any logistics modules and drones, there will still be a plenty of unique and intresting setups. But your decision just makes it all uniform, all-rounded formats. And not intresting fights when a non-uniform team falls after removal it's key ship or most embarrassing for your format.
|
colera deldios
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.04.10 15:00:00 -
[5]
Stupidest idea I have heard in a while.
What the fck are you thinking?
People spend weeks and months preparing for this, put in their own isk in alot of cases, plan their calenders around the tourny dates and you want those people to be removed from the fight for no good reason?
Whoever came up with this idea is clearly a moron.
|
Poppazzard
|
Posted - 2011.04.10 18:23:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Poppazzard on 10/04/2011 18:27:32
The banning of a player for the entire match whilst novel, will certainly upset the pilot involved and very likely ruin their experience of the tournament, it could be they have a single shot at a slot in the team after a lot of hard work and it was removed through the game rule rather than their oppositions skill.
If CCP want to make a variation on the entire team turning up as expected, why not have each team see the opponents line-up before the match commences and allow each team to second guess their opponents likely 'warp in range/landing beacon' for some or all of their fleet. They pass this info to the GM who holds any opponent ships intending to warp in at that chosen range to have a delay of 30 seconds or 1 minute before they drop out of warp. Its a tactical advantage if you get it right and also if you can outfox the opposing team into incorrectly guessing your own teams warp in ranges.
Just a variation of CCP's new rule. But perhaps one which won't be seen in quite such a negative light. It still allows all team members to have full participation, albeit perhaps a slight delay to join their team mates due to being outguessed by a canny opponent.
|
Terianna Eri
Senex Legio
Get Off My Lawn
|
Posted - 2011.04.10 18:48:00 -
[7]
I think between this and the 11 page feedback thread on the new forums CCP has been given ample feedback about why this change is pretty much the worst idea ever (not sure if it's better or worse than the anomaly nerf but that's a different topic).
The question now is if they're going to continue the CCP Greyscale-esque method of customer relations and say "nope we know what you guys think will be fun better than you do, yeah we asked for your feedback but we're not going to actually consider or respond to it" or if they will come to their senses and actually change the rule.
Here's a summary of the problems raised in the feedback thread (or as many of them as I can remember) :
- Makes huge classes of setups pretty much completely inviable
- Hugely encourages homogenous setups
- Extremely discouraging to players who want to fly in the tournament
- Does not lead to any difficult choices ingame (since there will be either one or two obvious ships to ban or the fleets will be so homogenous, so it doesn't matter)
- Not fun for the players doing the banning - I certainly find no joy in telling someone else who worked to get to the tournament "no sorry you can't play lololololol". Then again, I'm not a sociopath...
- Puts more emphasis on flagships, a mechanic that wasn't frequently used last year because battleships in tournament settings aren't very good because EWAR exists
- Not interesting to watch or cast (because it's not an interesting choice)
- Really lame for people who take time away from work or their families to fly in the EVE tournament and then get sent home
- Invalidates setups that rely on a particular ship being kept alive to function
- Really sucks if you're an EVE celebrity or a known FC - and this isn't fun at all (in fact basically telling the most famous players that specifically, you *can't* play (or play in a ship worth banning) is actively unfun. If I run into DHB wildcat and co. on the field and I win, I don't want it to be because I banned a player, I'd want it to be because I brought a better setup than his team did.
- Reality TV vote-offs suck. Why are they in this game?
Here's a thought - a lot of EVE players have a pretty good mind for game design, so why don't you tell us what you want to acheive in the new tournament and we can give you suggestions.
________________
Originally by: CCP Incognito
PS the "time to P*nis" is the shortest time recorded in human history. :)
|
Aiwha
Caldari
101st Space Marine Force
Nulli Secunda
|
Posted - 2011.04.10 19:25:00 -
[8]
If this rule stays in I'm not even going to watch the tourney. If I wanted to see two standard issue fleets brawl I can x up for a roam.
There's no such thing as overkill, only degrees of effectiveness. |
Jack Coutu
Gallente
Percussive Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2011.04.10 22:30:00 -
[9]
+1 To not watching the tourney with this horrible rule. Way to make a AT terrible.
|
Khanya Trace
|
Posted - 2011.04.10 23:43:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Khanya Trace on 10/04/2011 23:44:52
This is not thought trough.
Players cant use any kind of strategy that requires special ships, because they will loose one of those ships and they cant do anything about it.
Doubling everything is not efficient, so you either have to hide your strategy AND hope you are lucky, or make every ship have the same role.
If you want something like elemination, let each team pick X ships that cant be used BEFORE they select their setup.
|
sevyn nine
|
Posted - 2011.04.10 23:58:00 -
[11]
What an awful idea. I don't know what is worse, the dimwit that came up with the idea or the clueless, utterly ******ed people who OKed it. This is so mind-blowingly stupid that a part of me still thinks it's a troll.
|
Herping yourDerp
|
Posted - 2011.04.11 01:42:00 -
[12]
i normally think of every situation, the only thing i see that would be epic win is having Bait ROOK or logi ships banned and have a tengu as the real logistic ship.
|
fattrader II
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2011.04.11 01:43:00 -
[13]
stop crying, this is actually a great idea and it will make the tourney a lot more interesting, but obviously the eve community shows their true colors again for being crying babies
|
Terianna Eri
Senex Legio
Get Off My Lawn
|
Posted - 2011.04.11 02:18:00 -
[14]
Originally by: fattrader II
stop crying, this is actually a great idea and it will make the tourney a lot more interesting, but obviously the eve community shows their true colors again for being crying babies
trollface.png.jpg.exe.7z.bat
________________
Originally by: CCP Incognito
PS the "time to P*nis" is the shortest time recorded in human history. :)
|
fattrader II
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2011.04.11 02:31:00 -
[15]
I'm not trolling, a lot of boring fights last few years revolved around high ecm teams powning or getting powned, since they were mainly white washes, this year dps oriented setups are more attractive, which results in more fun and close fights which is best for the audience and the participants, the rock paper scissors factor will still exist but not to the same extent, which has been the main culprit for boring fights the past few years
_______________________________
Garmon aka Garrmonia
|
A HOBO
Kangaroos With Frickin Lazerbeams
The KWFL Republic
|
Posted - 2011.04.11 02:41:00 -
[16]
Minor tweaks to the pint costs - +1 would have liked to see a split between pirate faction and navy factions but still looks like it more balanced now.
Changing the schedule to a round robin setup post qualifyers- +1 gives us more games and should make it interesting.
50 pt pre qualifyers teams - +0 havent deceided if i feel ripped off or if its a good oppertunity yet.
removing players before the match starts - -1000000000000000 plenty of well thaught out posts that say why its bad, sounds like the sort of thing that could be vaugly viable if the tournament was a more reguler event, monthly maby but as it stands it only doing horrible things to our expectations, if you do have any intention of listening to feedback (or admiting that its a troll) please let us know early so we can reconsider participating this year.
|
Wu Phat
|
Posted - 2011.04.11 03:57:00 -
[17]
I would rather like for team captains be given a list of the opposing teams pilots name before the match not knowing what ships they are in and deciding then before the match starts. Captains will use there picks more tacitly and you will force each team to enter change ships after each round.
Example for 2 rounds the same team has been using the same pilot for logistics and you as captain have a felling he will be in it for your next match. As captain you decide to choose him. Same for Command ship with links. Not a lot of pilots have maxed leadership skills and this teams pilot has been the command link ship for 2 rounds.As captain you fell it will hurt the opposing team to cut the bonuses to do more damage to there fleet setup . This will make you want a more flexible team then just saying I don't like this ship get it off the field & you hit your Pu22y button. If that is the case get Jump bridges & bots out of eve I don't like it!!!!
Just that little tweak will make later rounds more enjoyable as you are forced to change and not being doomed no mater what. It adds trickery into the mix you pick the pilot that was in the vindicator last round but this round he is in a Frigate and the logistics pilot is flying the vindicator.
Question: Will this be used in pre-qualifier rounds ???
|
Terianna Eri
Senex Legio
Get Off My Lawn
|
Posted - 2011.04.11 04:04:00 -
[18]
Originally by: fattrader II
I'm not trolling, a lot of boring fights last few years revolved around high ecm teams powning or getting powned, since they were mainly white washes, this year dps oriented setups are more attractive, which results in more fun and close fights which is best for the audience and the participants, the rock paper scissors factor will still exist but not to the same extent, which has been the main culprit for boring fights the past few years
While I see your point, I think there are better ways to encourage DPS/EHP-based brawlfests than the banning mechanic which throws non DPS/EHP based setups out the window while also avoiding the incredibly lame idea of pointing to one guy on the opposing team and saying "lol u cant play"
I also think that you're going to get really sick of cruiser-based EHP/DPS slugfests very quickly.
There were also a lot of one-sided hulk smash fests that had very little ECM anyway...
________________
Originally by: CCP Incognito
PS the "time to P*nis" is the shortest time recorded in human history. :)
|
A HOBO
Kangaroos With Frickin Lazerbeams
The KWFL Republic
|
Posted - 2011.04.11 04:32:00 -
[19]
Originally by: fattrader II
I'm not trolling, a lot of boring fights last few years revolved around high ecm teams powning or getting powned, since they were mainly white washes, this year dps oriented setups are more attractive, which results in more fun and close fights which is best for the audience and the participants, the rock paper scissors factor will still exist but not to the same extent, which has been the main culprit for boring fights the past few years
Do you even play eve? rock paper scissors is 90% of the combat, preperation is almost all of it, if you remove all ewar modules from the game then you wouldnt have this problem... but you also wouldnt have a populer game.
Think of it like a game of poker, way more fun when you cant tell your apponent that the ace he just pulled on you to win a butload of cash cant be used cos you say so.
dont try and fix something that aint broke.
|
Shiroi Okami
Gallente
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2011.04.11 06:46:00 -
[20]
Originally by: A HOBO
Originally by: fattrader II
I'm not trolling, a lot of boring fights last few years revolved around high ecm teams powning or getting powned, since they were mainly white washes, this year dps oriented setups are more attractive, which results in more fun and close fights which is best for the audience and the participants, the rock paper scissors factor will still exist but not to the same extent, which has been the main culprit for boring fights the past few years
Do you even play eve?
dont try and fix something that aint broke.
hahahahahahaha, you have no idea who you're talking to do you
------
My latest pvp video - Freestyle |
Kumq uat
Gallente
Guiding Hand Social Club
Dystopia Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.04.11 08:23:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Shiroi Okami
Originally by: A HOBO
Originally by: fattrader II
I'm not trolling, a lot of boring fights last few years revolved around high ecm teams powning or getting powned, since they were mainly white washes, this year dps oriented setups are more attractive, which results in more fun and close fights which is best for the audience and the participants, the rock paper scissors factor will still exist but not to the same extent, which has been the main culprit for boring fights the past few years
Do you even play eve?
dont try and fix something that aint broke.
hahahahahahaha, you have no idea who you're talking to do you
I dunno. Do you know who you are talking to? Nice to see Hydra trolling this topic though.
---------------------------------------
www.eve-pirate.com original author |
Discordance Axis
Initium Malum
Dead Terrorists
|
Posted - 2011.04.11 09:33:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Brinxter
I dislike this rule aswell, for the following reasons;
- It does not promote unique setups, because those are usually pivotal around a few ships, lose one, and it breaks down.
- Since there is only one Logistic ship allowed, people will probably just leave those at home, which sadly promotes stale, uniform fleets.
- If you have either a famous fleet commander, or maybe just one because you are a small alliance, and lose him for that fight, losing the ship he in, isnt even the biggest problem.
- Because you might lose the fleet commander, you are forced to bring a secondary, which means there is one less spot for someone else to be able to fly along with you, which is annoying if you are a big alliance, and want to give everyone a chance to participate.
- So, like Pinky before me said, you have finally made it to the point where you actually get to join a fight in the fabled Alliance Tournament, you prepared for months for it, maybe even took some days off to train, or the fight itself.
And now, the big moment has arrived, you warp in, see your opponent, and you get to leave, without firing a shot...
Nothing to add to this really. Please remove banning CCP. I like well thought out setups.
|
IceGuerilla
Amarr
Poseidon's Wingmen
Perihelion Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.04.11 10:03:00 -
[23]
Here's an idea - change the victory conditions etc to make people think twice about banning - make it so you lose the 25% point bonus if you win, but have banned someone. Then, if someone decides to ban a 21 point faction BS, they would at best score a measly 79 points instead of 125 for winning. If this were a serious disadvantage, it would make people think twice about banning members of the other team.
All opinions expressed are of IceGuerilla and not of his corp/alliance. |
A HOBO
Kangaroos With Frickin Lazerbeams
The KWFL Republic
|
Posted - 2011.04.11 12:27:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Shiroi Okami
Originally by: A HOBO
Originally by: fattrader II
I'm not trolling, a lot of boring fights last few years revolved around high ecm teams powning or getting powned, since they were mainly white washes, this year dps oriented setups are more attractive, which results in more fun and close fights which is best for the audience and the participants, the rock paper scissors factor will still exist but not to the same extent, which has been the main culprit for boring fights the past few years
Do you even play eve?
dont try and fix something that aint broke.
hahahahahahaha, you have no idea who you're talking to do you
Some eve player who is overly concerend with his epeen and enjoys a good troll every now and then, would love to have a fight againt you in the alliance tourney.... but good chance id just get banned before the match starts.
|
thoraxius demioses
Gallente
no goats here
|
Posted - 2011.04.11 17:23:00 -
[25]
hrmm seems like a bad idea..
maybe you can alter the rule to be that the guy banend needs to take anoter ship of a specific class say Battlecruiser or cruiser.
atleast that way th linchpins can stil be put into th fight if voted out but with a lesser performance. and the guy thats bin working hard on this and cleared his agenda to participate. wil still be in.
and where is CCP's responds to all the posts? 
|
eliminator2
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.04.11 17:29:00 -
[26]
basicly it will make most pple think "wtf is point" and then go in with crap ships for lawl as it would be a waist to setup a startergy since before the fight you are ****ed basicly
kill bannning rule
-----------------------------------------------
I met Eliminator1..... I chewed it up, and spat it out. Now, he is my minion.
I kill miners and mission runners people say, I call them target pra |
Poppazzard
|
Posted - 2011.04.11 18:19:00 -
[27]
I posted earlier and agree that the rule seems harsh and ill prepared, many variations have been offered or a simple revoke the rule statement. What remains to be seen is whether CCP will listen to its customers and at least look at reviewing the feedback, or they can sit back and see if they fill all of the tournament slots as the rules stand.
One alliance at least have already stated they will back the new rule-set I wonder if any are prepared to boycott or at least heavily petition CCP to answer its critics on this one rule point.
I don't have a perfectly skilled pilot who can dream of joining in the tournament, nor do I belong to an alliance in a position to enter, but what I do enjoy doing is watching the tournament matches, trying to out guess the pundits and normally cheering the underdog. I follow the matches just as enthusiastically as some follow major sporting events in football or baseball etc. I hope my enthusiasm for AT9 won't be marred by this particular rule.
As many many posts have said, the pilots involved generally have made a major effort to both be available at the time of the tournament and through any training matches their alliance have ran regardless of their timezone or real life circumstances. I know of no other 'sport' that allows the opposing team to 'red card' a player just because the opposing team think they might lose if he participates..... Maybe this was all an 'April fools joke' and we've all been had !!! now wouldn't that be nice 
|
Kashimir
Otoko no Baito
|
Posted - 2011.04.11 19:49:00 -
[28]
Adding to all points raised in this thread I believe there is an even more fundamental issue with this rule. It's really a rule that, not encourages, but actually gives a mechanic to meta-gaming and that is against the definition. It would be fun to see a pilot not showing up because of the iskies he happened to get from the opposing team, but I just don't see what is supposed to be the goal, worthy enough, to allow such 'out of the game'-mechanic.
So, it's not like I'm heavily against this rule (me, being just a viewer) but I would really like to see the goals and the thought process behind this rule explained by CCP. If they think it'll work they should be able to convince us, or atleast myself :)
|
|
CCP Mindstar
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 10:13:00 -
[29]
Hey guys,
Firstly my apologies for our general silence on the forums thus far relating to this. Myself, Sreegs and Zirnitra have all been pretty heavily involved in the response to the forum issues, and I'm sure you can imagine that it has been a little bit of an unexpected draw on our time. That said, we have been reading the feedback both on both versions of our forum and we are definitely listening.
We will sit down today and discuss this rule (banning), the feedback from you guys and will make a response to all of this by the end of the day.
Cheers,
Mindstar.
-- |
|
Terianna Eri
Senex Legio
Get Off My Lawn
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 10:46:00 -
[30]
Originally by: CCP Mindstar
Hey guys,
Firstly my apologies for our general silence on the forums thus far relating to this. Myself, Sreegs and Zirnitra have all been pretty heavily involved in the response to the forum issues, and I'm sure you can imagine that it has been a little bit of an unexpected draw on our time. That said, we have been reading the feedback both on both versions of our forum and we are definitely listening.
We will sit down today and discuss this rule (banning), the feedback from you guys and will make a response to all of this by the end of the day.
Cheers,
Mindstar.
<3
If I can emphasize one key point here - telling players they can't participate isn't very much fun, even if it does lead to goodfites. I'm all for shaking up the tournament but there has to be a way to really change the set of 'viable tactics' without telling 10% of each team to pack up and go home.
But in any case, thank you for coming back to the tournament forums and considering the feedback you've received from myself and many others 
________________
Originally by: CCP Incognito
PS the "time to P*nis" is the shortest time recorded in human history. :)
|
Suitonia
Gallente
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 11:02:00 -
[31]
I think the banning rule could be interesting if it's done to prevent specific ship types and done in advance, for example, I could ban 'rooks' from a match, and my opponent could decide to ban 'sliepnirs' and neither of us would be able to use those ships. That would make it fairly interesting and people who rely heavily on one setup will have to switch up, also, a lot of strategy and metagaming goes into banning thoughts such as banning a ship that counters your setup, or even banning a counter to a counter which you counter (if that makes sense) to bait the opponent into thinking you're bringing a different kind of setup or a specific setup like an EWAR strategy. It would also mean that scrubs would have to adapt instead of bringing one strategy.
Its terrible when it's done against a specific player and on grid for the reasons mentioned.
---
|
Trazis
UNKN0WN ENTITY
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 17:45:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Suitonia
I think the banning rule could be interesting if it's done to prevent specific ship types and done in advance, for example, I could ban 'rooks' from a match, and my opponent could decide to ban 'sliepnirs' and neither of us would be able to use those ships. That would make it fairly interesting and people who rely heavily on one setup will have to switch up, also, a lot of strategy and metagaming goes into banning thoughts such as banning a ship that counters your setup, or even banning a counter to a counter which you counter (if that makes sense) to bait the opponent into thinking you're bringing a different kind of setup or a specific setup like an EWAR strategy. It would also mean that scrubs would have to adapt instead of bringing one strategy.
Its terrible when it's done against a specific player and on grid for the reasons mentioned.
I was thinking something along these lines as well, completely agree with you on both points.
|
Thingymawotzit
Kangaroos With Frickin Lazerbeams
The KWFL Republic
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 22:15:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Suitonia
I think the banning rule could be interesting if it's done to prevent specific ship types and done in advance, for example, I could ban 'rooks' from a match, and my opponent could decide to ban 'sliepnirs' and neither of us would be able to use those ships. That would make it fairly interesting and people who rely heavily on one setup will have to switch up, also, a lot of strategy and metagaming goes into banning thoughts such as banning a ship that counters your setup, or even banning a counter to a counter which you counter (if that makes sense) to bait the opponent into thinking you're bringing a different kind of setup or a specific setup like an EWAR strategy. It would also mean that scrubs would have to adapt instead of bringing one strategy.
Its terrible when it's done against a specific player and on grid for the reasons mentioned.
Even if your not trolling, were all just gonna call it a troll anyway cause lets face it - I cant even remember the last time HYDRA made a serious post.
+1 for getting rid of this terrible rule.
- - -
| KWFL Killboard | |
SmashTech
|
Posted - 2011.04.13 14:55:00 -
[34]
Wouldn't it be cool if you could ban one member of the opposing sports team as soon as they stepped onto the field?
No wait, it would be idiotic.
Terribad rule. Terribad.
|
Terianna Eri
Senex Legio
Get Off My Lawn
|
Posted - 2011.04.13 17:52:00 -
[35]
Originally by: SmashTech
Wouldn't it be cool if you could ban one member of the opposing sports team as soon as they stepped onto the field?
No wait, it would be idiotic.
Terribad rule. Terribad.
:slowpoke:
________________
Originally by: CCP Incognito
PS the "time to P*nis" is the shortest time recorded in human history. :)
|
smljdcgirggsgmxghrm
|
Posted - 2011.04.14 14:28:00 -
[36]
Banning specific players would be pretty pointless cause accounts within a team will get shared anyways.
Just watch the last tourney, there are players who appear with their main and like two of their
alts in a match. And no they were not tripple-boxing for sure...
Also, I like the rule. Forces ppl to create new setups or redefine their old ones. EVE credo allways was
adapt or die, it's the same in this case.
best of luck to all of u |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |