Mr Rive
Black Omega Security
Pandemic Legion
   |
Posted - 2011.06.14 11:30:00 -
[1]
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.
|
Mr Rive
Black Omega Security
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2011.06.15 10:41:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Terianna Eri
I would like to see (but don't know how to encourage it with rules):
-MORE LASERS
-MORE BLASTERS
-LESS AUTOCANNONS
But of course Minmatar ships are extremely good in tournament settings so I don't know if it's possible to get these.
I think the best way to do this would be to add wormhole like additions to each bracket. For instance, the first bracket got a 10% optimal range bonus to hybrid turrets, and remote reps had a 50% less effective optimal range. This would make teams use 'the best' setups they had for every bracket. If done poorly though it would just mess things up for smaller teams.
You could do the same thing in the groups instead of the brackets, so each initial group had a bonus and a negative effect to work around. This would stop people using the same setups in each bracket. It would have to be removed after the group stages though
|