EVE Search - Banning. Banned.

All Channels

EVE Alliance Tournament Discussion

Banning. Banned.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)
Poppazzard	Posted - 2011.04.12 19:03:00 - [31] Thankyou CCP Roll on the tourney :)
Angel HUN Spricer	Posted - 2011.04.12 19:06:00 - [32] A wise decision. Originally by: CCP Oveur We. Will. Never. Leave. EVE.
Red Nucleus Origin. Black Legion.	Posted - 2011.04.12 19:56:00 - [33] Originally by: Hatsumi Kobayashi Should also ban Sreegs while you're at it. This.
NinjaTurtle Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2011.04.12 20:03:00 - [34] That's.... too bad. I thought it was actually going to be an interesting facet of tournament play. Oh well. Maybe next year. Owing to lack of Eve-related content, forums removed. If you would like to discuss this, please flame me.
Antihrist Pripravnik 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.04.12 21:40:00 - [35] Good decision. +1
Terianna Eri Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn	Posted - 2011.04.12 21:43:00 - [36] Thank you for listening to our feedback ________________ Originally by: CCP Incognito PS the "time to P*nis" is the shortest time recorded in human history. :)
xXxDrAgOnWrAiThxXx1996 BOUNTY. HUNTER. MINING. EXSPLORATION. CORPORATION. HYDRA RELOADED	Posted - 2011.04.12 23:31:00 - [37] Edited by: xXxDrAgOnWrAiThxXx1996 on 12/04/2011 23:35:53 the banning rule would have changed the force multipliers considerably, ECM heavy teams are very OP, given how effective racials are, just easy to counter, so it ends up being whitewashes between the two, this year it might be less of rock paper scissors The banning rule pushes towards more dps oriented setups, setups that are mainly dps/range/ehp/speed focused, which leaves every ship with less of a key role with their midslots, this means, in some setups, going with damage misdirection tactics won't actually nerf the gang that much, since last year it would mean a lot of ewar lost, this year it wouldn't have been as much of a priority, this would have made the tourney much more tactical and interesting to watch, any one remember when PL used that bait curse in at6 was it? it was awesome it also makes kiting setups much more viable Last year, for example, without the oneiros, our Myrm team would have crumbled so easily against any other team, logistics are more important in high ewar setups because their effectiveness is multiplied many times over considering how many jams would actually go through, high ewar setups are very low on DPS usually, all it takes is 1-2 enemy high dps ships to be unjammed to kill a rook in a few seconds, also logistics wouldn't be the only thing to ban, in many cases it would also be a ship like the huginn/rapier if it's a fight between two high dps teams just trying to give my thoughts to some of the things Mindstar was trying to achieve, he didn't deserve such a feedback, many people didn't seem to grasp/understand what he was trying to do at all, I hope you try something similar next year - I actually feel ashamed to be in this community to see all the whines all over forums, it felt like I was reading the wow forums again about the incoming paladin nerf _______________________________ Garmon aka Garrmonia aka the PoWnEr
Mr Rive Rens 911 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2011.04.12 23:36:00 - [38] Originally by: xXxDrAgOnWrAiThxXx1996 this would have made the tourney much more tactical and interesting to watch, any one remember when PL used that bait curse in at7 was it? it was awesome Last year, for example, without the oneiros, our Myrm team would have crumbled so easily against any other team yeah no, that curse setup wouldnt have worked with the banning rule. it is exactly that kind of thing that the banning rule removes. The myrm team was just an average setup, any decent setup would have no trouble killing it off. Frankly, i dont think YOU know what mindstar was trying to achieve if you dont know the basics of tournament fitting
Seldarine Minmatar Boats 'n Hoes WE FORM VOLTRON	Posted - 2011.04.12 23:47:00 - [39] Edited by: Seldarine on 12/04/2011 23:47:13 Originally by: Mr Rive Originally by: xXxDrAgOnWrAiThxXx1996 this would have made the tourney much more tactical and interesting to watch, any one remember when PL used that bait curse in at7 was it? it was awesome Last year, for example, without the oneiros, our Myrm team would have crumbled so easily against any other team yeah no, that curse setup wouldnt have worked with the banning rule. it is exactly that kind of thing that the banning rule removes. The myrm team was just an average setup, any decent setup would have no trouble killing it off. Frankly, i dont think YOU know what mindstar was trying to achieve if you dont know the basics of tournament fitting first time i have agreed with mr rive ______________________________ Seldarine
xXxDrAgOnWrAiThxXx1996 BOUNTY. HUNTER. MINING. EXSPLORATION. CORPORATION. HYDRA RELOADED	Posted - 2011.04.12 23:58:00 - [40] Originally by: Mr Rive Originally by: xXxDrAgOnWrAiThxXx1996 this would have made the tourney much more tactical and interesting to watch, any one remember when PL used that bait curse in at7 was it? it was awesome Last year, for example, without the oneiros, our Myrm team would have crumbled so easily against any other team yeah no, that curse setup wouldnt have worked with the banning rule. it is exactly that kind of thing that the banning rule removes. The myrm team was just an average setup, any decent setup would have no trouble killing it off. Frankly, i dont think YOU know what mindstar was trying to achieve if you dont know the basics of tournament fitting you're the best poster of pl I was just giving an example with the curse, I assume it had a Basilisk in the gang to make the specific fit it was in possible, I think it's unfair to say that the banning rule would actually remove this considering there's so many other ways to go about it that isn't dependent on logistics, also have you seen such a thing in the last two AT? considering rules haven't really changed have to agree that we completely winged it last year though, combination of inexperience and lack of interest screwed us over, hopefully we'll do better this year _______________________________ Garmon aka Garrmonia aka the PoWnEr
Headerman Minmatar Metanoia. Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.04.13 01:01:00 - [41] I for one can't wait to participate in this years AT
Admiral Goberius Amarr North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.04.13 01:30:00 - [42] Originally by: Seldarine Edited by: Seldarine on 12/04/2011 23:47:13 Originally by: Mr Rive The myrm team was just an average setup, any decent setup would have no trouble killing it off. first time i have agreed with mr rive Objection your honor. - Gob
Rebbecca Black	Posted - 2011.04.13 03:38:00 - [43] As a spectator I loved AT8. My brother and I were driving across the United States for a month visiting family and every couple of days would watch a few more matches together.. was awesome. The banning really had me worried as a spectator, because part of the enjoyment is watching the logistics fight. The quick switches for repairs as new primaries get hit with alpha strikes, the tackle trying to get on top of scimis, guardians just tanking damage while they burned away. Again.. I loved AT8, so thanks for the hard work last year and for the hard work you're putting into this years event. I'm quite happy that banning has been banned.
Terianna Eri Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn	Posted - 2011.04.13 04:32:00 - [44] A rules question: In your (CCP Mindstar's) devblog revealing the rules for AT9, you say: "Flagships: Definitely making a return, officer mods and all! You will also be able to change their fitting from match to match." Can you expand on this? The rules say that "Flagship designs must be created in advance and their ship hull submitted...", does this mean that teams will have to submit each of the fittings they might be using? Also, the rules say that "All flagship names and hull types will be published in the Flagships section...", am I reading this correctly when I take it to mean that the submitted fittings will not be publicized? Thank you. ________________ Originally by: CCP Incognito PS the "time to P*nis" is the shortest time recorded in human history. :)
Tyrrax Thorrk Amarr Guiding Hand Social Club Dystopia Alliance	Posted - 2011.04.13 07:15:00 - [45] Edited by: Tyrrax Thorrk on 13/04/2011 07:15:06 Originally by: Terianna Eri A rules question: In your (CCP Mindstar's) devblog revealing the rules for AT9, you say: "Flagships: Definitely making a return, officer mods and all! You will also be able to change their fitting from match to match." Can you expand on this? The rules say that "Flagship designs must be created in advance and their ship hull submitted...", does this mean that teams will have to submit each of the fittings they might be using? Also, the rules say that "All flagship names and hull types will be published in the Flagships section...", am I reading this correctly when I take it to mean that the submitted fittings will not be publicized? Thank you. They already clarified this (on the evegate forum) - you only have to tell CCP the ship type and name, fittings aren't public this year.

CCP Mindstar	Posted - 2011.04.13 08:34:00 - [46] Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk Edited by: Tyrrax Thorrk on 13/04/2011 07:15:06 Originally by: Terianna Eri A rules question: In your (CCP Mindstar's) devblog revealing the rules for AT9, you say: "Flagships: Definitely making a return, officer mods and all! You will also be able to change their fitting from match to match." Can you expand on this? The rules say that "Flagship designs must be created in advance and their ship hull submitted...", does this mean that teams will have to submit each of the fittings they might be using? Also, the rules say that "All flagship names and hull types will be published in the Flagships section...", am I reading this correctly when I take it to mean that the submitted fittings will not be publicized? Thank you. They already clarified this (on the evegate forum) - you only have to tell CCP the ship type and name, fittings aren't public this year. What Tyrrax said is correct. The only notification you need to give is of the ship type you will use. The actual fitting is not going to be public, and can be changed so long as it stays within the overall flagship & tournament fitting restrictions. --

K0UM	Posted - 2011.04.13 13:50:00 - [47] Originally by: CCP Mindstar Hey all, The biggest one of these would be the fairness to pilots who would get eliminated by it, and this is also the most difficult to resolve without massively complicating the rules. Hi, one simple idea how to solve it. Do not ban a player for whole fight, just for first 60 (90) secs . He can sit on a beacon and then warp to the arena as reinforcement. This would have significant impact on tactics without breaking Geneva conventions.
NinjaTurtle Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2011.04.13 16:06:00 - [48] Or at least keep the banning rule through the pre-qualifying stages, where it would have been the most interesting to see, as those fights are going to be much more hit and miss anyways. Nice listening to your player base, but don't forget about this rule for next year. It has interesting possibilities.
Tyrrax Thorrk Amarr Guiding Hand Social Club Dystopia Alliance	Posted - 2011.04.13 17:00:00 - [49] It never applied to the pre-qualifiers, that would've been even dumber. Pretty impressive really how CCP makes this really mindbogglingly stupid rule, and we still get tons of even dumber suggestions to "improve" it from the playerbase.
Terianna Eri Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn	Posted - 2011.04.13 17:48:00 - [50] Originally by: CCP Mindstar What Tyrrax said is correct. The only notification you need to give is of the ship type you will use. The actual fitting is not going to be public, and can be changed so long as it stays within the overall flagship & tournament fitting restrictions. I missed that part of the thread on the new forums - must have been before the rage and shiptoasting really picked up Thanks for the clarification ________________ Originally by: CCP Incognito PS the "time to P*nis" is the shortest time recorded in human history. :)
Red Nucleus Origin. Black Legion.	Posted - 2011.04.13 19:25:00 - [51] Originally by: Terianna Eri Originally by: CCP Mindstar What Tyrrax said is correct. The only notification you need to give is of the ship type you will use. The actual fitting is not going to be public, and can be changed so long as it stays within the overall flagship & tournament fitting restrictions. I missed that part of the thread on the new forums - must have been before the rage and shiptoasting really picked up Thanks for the clarification You never needed the clarification to begin with you just have reading comprehension troubles... Ship hulls are what it said. A hull is just the ship itself, fittings are something else entirely...
Terianna Eri Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn	Posted - 2011.04.13 19:26:00 - [52] Edited by: Terianna Eri on 13/04/2011 19:30:04 Originally by: Red Nucleus You never needed the clarification to begin with you just have reading comprehension troubles... Ship hulls are what it said. A hull is just the ship itself, fittings are something else entirely... The rules said that players had to submit their flagship "DESIGNS" ahead of time. I found that wording ambiguous. Maybe you are the one who should improve your reading comprehension. Here, I'll even copy and paste it for you: "Flagship --->designs<--- must be created in advance and their ship hull submitted to CCP Alliance Tournament via Evemail no later than 01/06/2011." it ALSO says, in the next line, that "All flagship names and hull types will be published in the Flagships section of the Eve Online Alliance Tournament site following the deadline date." So yes, technically I didn't need confirmation on the second one. I was aware of this when I asked the question since it seemed unusual that fittings might be created beforehand but not publicized. Well done. Idiot. ________________ Originally by: CCP Incognito PS the "time to P*nis" is the shortest time recorded in human history. :)
Tyrrax Thorrk Amarr Guiding Hand Social Club Dystopia Alliance	Posted - 2011.04.13 19:36:00 - [53] yep i too posted to ask about this on the other forums, poorly worded
Bomberlocks Minmatar CTRL-Q	Posted - 2011.04.13 23:33:00 - [54] Originally by: xXxDrAgOnWrAiThxXx1996 Edited by: xXxDrAgOnWrAiThxXx1996 on 12/04/2011 23:35:53 the banning rule would have changed the force multipliers considerably, ECM heavy teams are very OP, given how effective racials are, just easy to counter, so it ends up being whitewashes between the two, this year it might be less of rock paper scissors The banning rule pushes towards more dps oriented setups, setups that are mainly dps/range/ehp/speed focused, which leaves every ship with less of a key role with their midslots, this means, in some setups, going with damage misdirection tactics won't actually nerf the gang that much, since last year it would mean a lot of ewar lost, this year it wouldn't have been as much of a priority, this would have made the tourney much more tactical and interesting to watch, any one remember when PL used that bait curse in at6 was it? it was awesome it also makes kiting setups much more viable Last year, for example, without the oneiros, our Myrm team would have crumbled so easily against any other team, logistics are more important in high ewar setups because their effectiveness is multiplied many times over considering how many jams would actually go through, high ewar setups are very low on DPS usually, all it takes is 1-2 enemy high dps ships to be unjammed to kill a rook in a few seconds, also logistics wouldn't be the only thing to ban, in many cases it would also be a ship like the huginn/rapier if it's a fight between two high dps teams just trying to give my thoughts to some of the things Mindstar was trying to achieve, he didn't deserve such a feedback, many people didn't seem to grasp/understand what he was trying to do at all, I hope you try something similar next year - I actually feel ashamed to be in this community to see all the whines all over forums, it felt like I was reading the wow forums again about the incoming paladin nerf Putting limits on ECM as is done with logis would have just as effective.
Rutefly Amarr Freedom-Technologies Eych Four Eks Zero Ahr	Posted - 2011.04.15 07:56:00 - [55] Originally by: Princess MotoMoto This.
Hamish Grayson Caldari Independent Navy Reserve	Posted - 2011.04.15 15:43:00 - [56] Thank you CCP! It would have sucked so much to he the banned guy. ============================================ It is said the warrior's is the twofold way of pen and sword
AnakieNine	Posted - 2011.04.16 08:24:00 - [57] Not sure what was written in that other thread however if you really liked the idea of choice based effects, you could have made it so that the "choosen" got a 25%-50% damage effect instead of banned from the match. A rush for healing/damaging that ship could be interesting! */Removes evil hat
SwindonBadger 0utbreak HYDRA RELOADED	Posted - 2011.04.19 21:13:00 - [58] Edited by: SwindonBadger on 19/04/2011 21:14:23 Originally by: CCP Loxy In before 10 page outrage that banning was banned and wildcat proclaiming the lack of banning is a violation of the Geneva convention. food for thought, time left for a quick vote on something like this All ships bar flagships may now use one faction/ officer mod (Could be known or not) One mods not too much, like navy web but on a dram or triston :) could be hero dram, otherwise ull only ever see faction bs or smilier role have unexpected fittings bring on the badger thoughts or shoot it? Eat Them all, let the digestion sort em out
fattrader II Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED	Posted - 2011.04.21 09:41:00 - [59] well said swindon _______________________________ Garmon aka Garrmonia aka the PoWnEr
Soldarius Caldari Northstar Cabal R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.04.24 23:36:00 - [60] AT9 Survivor Series! New team member enters every 60 seconds. Originally by: CCP Shadow ...I cannot guarantee (my) sobriety or decency.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.