EVE Search - Lets talk about rules for ATX

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Alliance Tournament Discussion

Lets talk about rules for ATX

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kil2 Club Bear HYDRA RELOADED	Posted - 2011.06.14 09:11:00 - [1] Something the experts always spend a lot of time talking about off camera during the tournament is potential rules changes. I know everyone has good ideas and I'm curious about what they are! Some requirements to keep in mind: -We can't have a format with multiple grids. This would be ideal because pvp on TQ is rarely confined to an "arena" but in the tournament viewability is the number one priority. -We can't be required to lock new ships mid-match. The camera ships have to stay cloaked during the match so they don't disrupt the teams in the competition in any way and locking mid-match would require uncloaked camera ships. -No capitals. Its feasible that caps could play some kind of support role but in almost every imaginable application they would just be boring and pointless. -It needs to be fun to watch! Excited to hear your ideas. -Kil2 ps - this thread is in no way endorsed, supported, or read by actual tournament organizers so don't get your hopes up If theres something amazing though, I can pay Raivi in Hydra related intel to make him convince CCP by force.
ScoRpS 0utbreak Outbreak.	Posted - 2011.06.14 09:25:00 - [2] Edited by: ScoRpS on 14/06/2011 09:35:37 I like the way the current rules keep the fittings sort of affordable. But to get the pace of carnage up for atX: 1) Get rid of logistic ships altogether. 2) 2 recons maximum per team. 3) Reduce the point value of hacs (11)? 4) split point values in t1 battle ship classes. tier 1, tier 2, tier 3 etc at the moment theres very little versatility or use for battle ship class. And make the whole tournament 10 man team knock out from beggining without qualifiers and group stages. This will help alot against fixing matches by virtue of elimination and self sacrafice. And lastly get Loxy some help. I think he has way too much on his shoulders.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2011.06.14 09:26:00 - [3] I actually think I know a work around to the new multiple regions rule.If a team has left over points they can have ships waiting off grid. At any time the team in the ring can warp out a ship if it's equal or less than the left over points and swap in a ship waiting out side. so kinda like tag teaming it. You could for instance, field 50 points of ships. Then wrap out your ship before it dies to tag in your partner. just a weird crazy not so serious idea : )
Millie Clode Amarr Insert Cool Name Here	Posted - 2011.06.14 10:24:00 - [4] Allow the use of sling bubbles in the arena. You could totally shag your opponents battle plan by drawing them out of position before the match even starts :) ---------- Who, me?
Fon Revedhort Monks of War DarkSide.	Posted - 2011.06.14 10:29:00 - [5] Hey, Kil2, it looks like I've stolen your hood --- Originally by: CCP Greyscale Is the Nighthawk actually underpowered?
Kil2 Club Bear HYDRA RELOADED	Posted - 2011.06.14 10:37:00 - [6] I hated that hood anyway =) at least now you really look like a rocket wizard
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2011.06.14 11:29:00 - [7] Limit the amount of specialized eWar ships to three of any one type, so we avoid the gimp-fights where one participant has to wait for a lucky RNG result. In short: ECM is stupidly powerful in small gang environments so should be artificially restricted until CCP gets their thumbs out and makes it BetterÖ. Seeding system so we don't get the mockery that is Group D where everyone with half an IQ knew who was going through before the first shot was even fired.
Mr Rive Black Omega Security Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.06.14 11:30:00 - [8] Edited by: Mr Rive on 14/06/2011 11:31:54 Flagships should have a reduced cost, it would allow them to be implimented, and we would see a hell of a lot more expensive explosions. Of course, the other option is, which has been advocated for quite a while on these forums would be to remove implants. Implants, while they can dramatically change a team, do not do much to sway the outcome of a match. This might seem a contraditory statement, but if you think about the last 2 matches PL has played, i can say with confidence that we could have easily won them without implants, and conversely, the enemy would not have won if they had had all 5%'s. However, if for instance 2 identical rush teams were to face each other, one with 5%'s and one with no implants at all, the team with more isk, but not necessarily more piloting skill would win. I don't think this is the right way round. Removing implants altogether would not only seem logical, as it would put less rich teams on a more even playing field, but it would also be easy to police with the new assets CCP has (or im assuming has, due to posts on this forum). I would go one further and to say that removing implants and adding boosters would be a slight change that could make things very intersting. As you have said before, variables always make for a more interesting tournament, and i dont see a downside to adding boosters. That is really about it. I think the ruleset as it is makes for a very dymanic tournament every year. Obviously fiddling with the points makes it more interesting, but other than doing a complete overhaul of the entire ruleset, I think CCP has hit the nail on the head in terms of competetivness. That said, perhaps the way teams are advanced to the next rounds needs a bit of change. I don't like the fact that our next match with HYDRA is a pretty pointless one (literally) for both sides. The problem is, it is very difficult to up the number of ships on the field without making it very difficult to what know is going on. I think an alternative to mix it up somewhat would be to perhaps impliment individual rules for each match in advance, for instance, a gallente only team, or to say that this match you are allowed 120 points worth of ships. I think it COULD make it more interesting, but it would be very complicated not only to police the rules, but to adapt to the changes each match. It would definately get rid of some 'unbeatable' (i use that term loosely) setups you see with the current rules. The biggest problem with rulechanges like the one stated above, is it gives the 'better' teams an advantage. We tend to adapt faster than most teams, which while everyone should be able to do, it makes for more of a whitewash when rule changes are implimented. As you know this is true for virtually all changes you can make. The incentive really is high enough for people to want to put the effort in, and if they did, i think a massive mix up of the rules each year would be appropriate and welcomed. As we are, it will just cause teams like ourselves, and HYDRA and the like, to win over and over again. I think this year we are closer to seeing an upset than at any other point, simply BECAUSE the rules have not been changed. Perhaps over the next couple of years, while interest in the tournament grows, the incentive for people to adapt to rule changes will increase. Otherwise it will just end up with the big hitters winning every year, which would be boring as hell.
Vokradacka	Posted - 2011.06.14 11:36:00 - [9] 1) no 5vs5!!! 2) changes - point value of logistics to 16-18 (12 is a joke) - HACs/FaC 13 ->12 - HICs 13 -> 10 - split command ships(14/16) 3) change penalty/handicap points (+ maybe 150% of scored points for winning team , 75% for L.)
Harotak Malicious Destruction	Posted - 2011.06.14 11:46:00 - [10] More points. 150 points per team would make battleships much more common.

Awesome Possum Original Sin. PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS	Posted - 2011.06.14 12:01:00 - [11] I liked the 5v5 qualifiers, keep 'em. However, I think you should allow every alliance that forks over the cash to compete in those 5v5s. This way there'd be no whining from big alliances about CCP "intentionally" keeping them out, or small alliances about not being able to "buy" their way in like the big alliances. Who cares if qualifiers take a few weekends... CCP shouldn't be allowed free time anyways. Disallow logistics during those 5v5s. Reduce the number of ewar (coughECMcough) hulls allowed. Increase available points and reduce cost on battleships, I want to see some slobberknockers. Allow C-Type mods, c'mon they're cheap as hell for the most part, let people use them. ♥
Andrea Griffin	Posted - 2011.06.14 13:00:00 - [12] Originally by: Awesome Possum Allow C-Type mods, c'mon they're cheap as hell for the most part, let people use them. Allow the use of deadspace / faction mods on any ship for an additional point cost. Perhaps a sliding scale based on meta level. - "When I nerf something, it takes 2-3 months for your dreams to be crushed." - CCP Big Dumb Object
Alar Tangor Caldari Decadence.	Posted - 2011.06.14 13:22:00 - [13] Allow missiles that are already in flight some sort of overtime like in basketball/soccer where balls in flight are still counted when they score even after the blow of the whistle Just a thought because it happened to us last match (and no i don't want CCP to re-rule their decision) Also formulate the rules concerning handicap/point values ect clearer. A lot of the current rules are formulated incredibly vague and split across two pages (rules and format)
Narciss Sevar Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.06.14 13:28:00 - [14] Logistics Cruiser - 16 Battleship, Faction - 15 Marauder - 14 Battleship - 14 Black Ops Battleship - 14 Command Ship - 13 Strategic Cruiser - 13 Cruiser, Faction - 12 Heavy Assault Cruiser - 11 Battlecruiser (Tier 2) - 11 Recon Ship - 11 Heavy Interdictor - 11 Battlecruiser (Tier 1) - 8 Cruiser - 6 Bomber - 5 Electronic Attack Frigate - 4 Frigate, Faction - 3 Assault Frigate - 3 Interdictor - 2 Interceptor - 2 Frigate - 2 Tech 1 Industrial Ships - 1 Destroyer - 1
DeadNite Caldari Detrimental Imperative	Posted - 2011.06.14 13:28:00 - [15] Perhaps eventually we could have more "weights" in the tournament with the 10v10 (or bigger) being the main attraction. 5v5 - Smallest grid. - Smallest number of points able to be fielded. - No Faction ships allowed. - No EWAR allowed (including drones). - No logistics (including drones). - No flagships. 10v10 - Medium grid. - Medium number of points able to be fielded. - Faction ships allowed - No EWAR allowed (excluding drones). - Single flagship. - Single logistics (Logistics drones allowed). ?v? - Biggest grid - Largest number of points able to be fielded. - Faction ships allowed - All EWAR allowed. - Multiple flagships. - Multiple logistics. That way everyone has something they can compete in. With the increased manpower needed to run something like this, you could perhaps start charging a premium fee. Have them every six months or something to keep interest peaked in the tournament. ================== It is, what it is.
Fon Revedhort Monks of War DarkSide.	Posted - 2011.06.14 13:49:00 - [16] Allow Crystal set to promote active local tanks which just aren't viable atm. Also allow Deadspace (local) armour reppers to compensate this. Things like dual Golems will look much more attractive. Not sure which smiley to insert here or . I guess I'll end up using this one: --- Originally by: CCP Greyscale Is the Nighthawk actually underpowered?
Iggy Stooge	Posted - 2011.06.14 13:52:00 - [17] Do away with group stages, make the tourney a straight knock-out event, 64/32/16/8/4/2. Too many matches with nothing riding on them, too much opportunity to make up for mistakes in present format. Make it a straight knock-em down, drag-em out affair.
Freelancer'Spb Fremen Sietch DarkSide.	Posted - 2011.06.14 14:08:00 - [18] 2 points for t1 frigate and 11(or 10) points for HACs if we want to see these ships in the tournament. Also agreed with Mr Rive - no implants would be much more fair.
LtCol Laurentius Zor Industries Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.06.14 14:24:00 - [19] Originally by: ScoRpS Edited by: ScoRpS on 14/06/2011 09:44:37 I like the way the current rules keep the fittings sort of affordable. But to get the pace of carnage up for atX: 1) Get rid of logistic ships altogether. Only local repping. They did this in AT6 after many boring dual logi matches in AT5. The result was however that there was suddenly no way you could hope to keep alive typical force multiplier ships like recons, EAFs, destroyers, interdictors, interceptors, bombers etc, and the result was one-dimensional slug matches where buffer and DPS output was the only considerations. A fresh change from AT5 to be sure, but not enough variation. By the final day of the tourney, every team fielded either 8-10 max buffered faction cruisers / battlecruisers (HACs were too many points) or a mix of battleships and max buffered assault frigates.
Admiral Goberius Amarr Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.06.14 14:53:00 - [20] - remove racial jammers - customize points for shiptypes and not shipclasses, start by modifying some and do a more comprehensive list every year (i.e. rooks and sleipnirs +1 points, pilgrim and nighthawk -1 points) - reduce battleship points cost, increase logistics point cost - tourney partecipants whose name starts with A are allowed to be ballers and explore yove space

ThrashPower Gallente Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED	Posted - 2011.06.14 15:09:00 - [21] Do something with frigate, interdictor and interceptor having the same point cost, also look at the price range of t2 cruisers. I suggest this is done by making teams field 1000 points (and obviously increasing ship prices across the board) giving more room to sort prices. Another idea which I am not sure if is a good one though, would be to limit the amount of warfarelinks a team can field, this might reduce the amount of battlecruiser / t3 hull heavy teams and give pilots more options.
LeviUK Black Omega Security Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.06.14 15:19:00 - [22] I think the rules themselves are fairly good at the moment, the mechanics of the tourney itself seem to be the real weakness this year. + Rules should be posted _well_ in advance, the guys that are interested in AT all gave feedback this year, but it was extremely messy. Previous captains(say final 16) should also be consulted for feelings on ideas - before the draft rules are formulated. For example to check what they think of 5v5. + The 5v5, its easy to see the logic, but in reality I don't think it would have made any difference to make it 10v10 - wins had very little to do with skill or strat of any form. + Brackets without true seeding does not result in a linear progression in skill/good match-ups. (to get a valid statistic, perhaps use predefined ships+fits v0v) + ECM is always going to be a sticky issue, I don't think limiting ships will do much to make it better, limiting module count however may be. Sure it'll be replace damps or whatever, but as you go down that tree things become easier to dynamically counter. On general terms : + The client needs some functionality in the tactical overview to anchor sphere around an object(s). These anchored bubbles could show up a wireframe (I cant think of something better to show depth with less stuff on screen) sphere in space - allowing pilots to see the edge of the arena (even out of tactical overview, via hotkey toggle?). This would also be useful for everything from gate camping to estimating docking radii for stations. + The small armor/shield/hull/cap transfer mods could really do with their fittings revised to be much lower as well as the amount being much higher. (logistics frigs will 0wn)
QwaarJet Gallente hirr Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.06.14 16:21:00 - [23] I don't think much needs to change. - Decrease points cost of faction battleships. - Limit number of jamming/dampening ships. - Allow every team that applies to get into the tournament, and have some kind of broadcast setup for every match, even if It is radio. - Increase arena size. - Increase Recon Ship points cost. - Decrease Marauder points cost. - Increase T3 points cost. - Decrease Assault Frigate points cost. - Increase Interdictor points cost. - Ditch Flagships completely. - Don't even consider bringing back the banning rule. I'm concerned about the massive number of Minmatar ships, but there isn't a rule change that could really fix that.
Kil2 Club Bear HYDRA RELOADED	Posted - 2011.06.14 16:30:00 - [24] Thanks guys. Keep it coming. I'm hoping to consolidate a lot of the good stuff from here with some of our own discussions and submit some kind of proposal before we leave iceland. Again, in the end the tournament organizers here can do whatever they want, but I think they will value our input.
Admiral Goberius Amarr Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.06.14 16:35:00 - [25] Originally by: Kil2 Thanks guys. Keep it coming. I'm hoping to consolidate a lot of the good stuff from here with some of our own discussions and submit some kind of proposal before we leave iceland. Again, in the end the tournament organizers here can do whatever they want, but I think they will value our input. one year later "hai guis wouldnt it be hilarious if you could ban an enemy ship right before the match XD ???" - CCP Sreegs
Jaigar	Posted - 2011.06.15 02:13:00 - [26] One thing I have liked throughout the ATs is the change in point value. The current point system's logistics price make it way too cheap to bring logistics. If logistics were upped to match Tech 3 (or both changed to 18), you might see might viable teams that don't have logistics. However you don't want to overcompensate. The other thing that was mentioned was HACs. HACs are too expensive for their use. Sadly they are sub-par to tier 2 battlecrusiers in terms of damage and tank. Their slightly smaller sig radius doesn't help too much vs. medium weapons, and since battleships aren't used often in the tournament, they don't gain much at all from it. I like the setup of this years tournament with the 5-man pre-quals. I think the 5-man teams offer something the 10-mans don't. With only 5-pilots the individual skill plays an even bigger role. Point cost play just as big (if not bigger) role here than in the 10-man. Some minor adjustments would be nice, such as tier 1 BC costs moving to 11 points to prevent the 5-man BC rush team. I know this strategy didn't always work, but it was disappointing to see not-so-coordinated BC teams win. Sleipnirs are also particularly strong. Its not that I don't like them (I love me sleipnir), its just that sleipnirs are incredibly strong in the tournament. I know its not the best argument to up command ship cost seeing how the other command ships aren't nearly as good, but the alliance tournament isn't about ship balance. Its about entertainment. New and inventive setups are something we all enjoy as well. We've seen artillery sleipnirs fielded twice last weekend, both with good results. So in short: encourage more cruisers, HACs, and battleships use through lowering points. This gives a greater distribution of ship size and offers newer players more insight into combat.
Uilamin Darkwynd Amarr Dead poets society The Laughing Men	Posted - 2011.06.15 03:49:00 - [27] One thing that could be done to help 'balance' the ship point costs is to have the point costs for each ship type vary between each round. Have it that the 3 ship types used the most (up to that point in the tourny [discounting matches played in the current round]) cost an extra point to field The 3 ship types used the least cost 1 point less. (potentially disregarding non-combat ships) Or something similar (maybe with each round a ship type stays on the list the modifier increases by one)
veldftw	Posted - 2011.06.15 05:14:00 - [28] how about making the ship points cost rise if u bring more than 1 of the ship. 1 sleip will cost 16 points the second will cost 18 points the third will cost 20 points however u can still bring 1 sleip, 1 claymore and 1 nighthawk for 16 points each
Shamis Orzoz Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.06.15 05:21:00 - [29] I'd recommend some point changes: Faction cruisers - lower them to 13 points. T1 Cruisers - lower them to 7 points. haulers - 1 point battleships/marauders/blackops - 17 points faction battleships - 20 points t1 frigates - 2 points Other than that, if you add a few more ships to the limit, we could have more interesting fights with more diverse tactics.
Mutnin Amarr Mutineers	Posted - 2011.06.15 06:48:00 - [30] Edited by: Mutnin on 15/06/2011 06:58:10 EW ship points should go up or fielding multiple of same type of EW specific ship types, should add an extra point penalty. Need to do something to stop the ECM teams that cause for boring matches, for the same reason they limit logistic ships.



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: 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.