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)
Thresh Avery Best Path Inc. Cascade Imminent	Posted - 2011.06.15 07:56:00 - [31] Edited by: Thresh Avery on 15/06/2011 07:59:55 Essentially i think the format of the tournament is as good as it's ever going to get without a being rebuilt from the ground up with a fresh (and probably very unpopular) new angle. Some points adjustments to give teams an opportunity for fresh setups and possibly a small shake up on fitting rules would probably do the trick. Aside from that, the inclusion of an "additional theme" like implementing flagships would make each tournament unique. Thank god CCP came to their senses on the banning rule though... Points adjustments: * Battleship, Faction - 19 (-2) * Marauder - 18 * Black Ops Battleship - 18 * Battleship (Tier 3) - 18 * Battleship (Tier 2) - 16 * Command Ship - 16 * Strategic Cruiser - 16 * Battleship (Tier 1) - 15 * Logistics Cruiser - 14 (+2) * Recon Ship - 14 (+1) * Battlecruiser (Tier 2) - 13 * Heavy Interdictor - 12 (-1) * Heavy Assault Cruiser - 12 (-1) * Cruiser, Faction - 11 (-3) * Battlecruiser (Tier 1) - 10 * Bomber - 8 (+2) * Cruiser - 6 (-2) * Electronic Attack Frigate - 5 * Assault Frigate - 4 * Interdictor - 4 (+1) * Interceptor - 3 * Frigate, Faction - 3 (-1) * Industrials, Tech 1 - 3 * Destroyer - 2 * Frigate - 2 (-1) To explain a few of them: - frigates are worse than destroyers, so they shouldn't be more expensive - cruisers still aren't used much, dropping a point or two could get them in action, because currently nobody would value them equal to two interdictors - bombers are powerful, but could stay at 6 points; i listed them as 8 as the upper limit - faction cruisers are way overpriced and way underused as a result - raising the price of logistics really makes teams think about their worth; as it stands, they're a dead cert for most alliances - battleships are overpriced which is why they rarely get a look in, so the tier 1 and 2 variants are a lot cheaper and should encourage their use Fittings changes: - No implants (same point as Mr Rive - sound reasoning) - No racial jammers (just supporting Gobbins on this one, it's a simple rule to reduce the strength of ECM which is overpowered in small scale combat) or no more than 2 of each Recon or EAF (eg. You could have 3 recons if it's 2 Rooks, 1 Falcon and 3 EAFs if it's 2 Kitsunes, 1 Hyena) - No warfare links? (Personally i like it how it is, but it could make things interesting) Finally, going back to the unique themes, last year somebody said a tournament inside the various wormholes would be interesting; each fight would have different phenomena (halfway down page) applied to it. It would have to be a class 1 wormhole so that the bonuses/drawbacks weren't too heavily influential, but i think with some thought it could work very well.
Kil2 Club Bear HYDRA RELOADED	Posted - 2011.06.15 09:05:00 - [32] good stuff guys. Quote: Finally, going back to the unique themes, last year somebody said a tournament inside the various wormholes would be interesting; This is something that keeps coming up. One thing i dont like about it is the idea of not knowing what kind of wormhole effect you would have for a match. it would add randomness to the results and i dont think we need that. what if there was a different effect assigned to each day of the tournament? everyone knew what to expect but we would see entirely different types of stuff on each day. I think the biggest problem with that is that seeing the setups evolve over the course of the tournament is fun, and that would be diminished to an extent. i guess teams also wouldnt be as motivated to hold back their really strong stuff until later. but then again that takes away an element of the tournament that we struggle to make guesses about currently. anyway, thanks all. glad some pros stopped by =)
Terianna Eri Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn	Posted - 2011.06.15 10:24:00 - [33] Edited by: Terianna Eri on 15/06/2011 10:24:54 I would not like to see things like "today we do Gallente-only setups". While this will definitely force new kinds of setups, I don't know if it'll actually result in better fights or more inventive setups (i.e. i can forsee restrictions that will result in only one or two obvious fleets that remain good). Additionally, some restrictions may hurt smaller alliances who may simply not have enough pilots to field viable all-Gallente (for example) setups. EDIT: restrictions like "you have to warp in at zero" might be fun though I would like to see (rules changes): -Point cost reduction on HACs, battleship hulls, HICs (cost as much as HACs? lol), faction cruisers, and T1 cruisers. -Point cost increase on logistics and T3s -Restrictions on ECM as it is the least interactive EWAR mechanic and leads to short, swingy fights one way or another. Banning racial ECM is my favorite way to do it so far - if you know what your opponent is going to bring, you should have to do more than say "lol ok bring 3 rooks with amarr jammers" to exploit that. -More sources of remote repping aside from Logi/T3/drones. Maybe 1 RR/ship -Slightly smaller arenas (200k instead of 250k across?) Torn on group stages. On one hand, I like the fact that it allows a way for every team to have at least 3 matches cast on EVETV, which is very cool. Also it allows teams to really plan out their matches since they know who they'll be fighting well ahead of time. On the other hand having matches where the result is literally irrelevant is.. questionable. Irrelevant matches can be fun because either team can bring really whatever they damn well please but also boring because there's nothing riding on it. Personally I lend towards the former - more matches per team and the possibility of having "lols" fights is worth it to me. Would really like prequalifiers to be cast next time. 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. ________________ Originally by: CCP Incognito PS the "time to P*nis" is the shortest time recorded in human history. :)
Mr Rive Black Omega Security Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.06.15 10:41:00 - [34] 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
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2011.06.15 11:25:00 - [35] Quite a few ship costs need rebalancing but thats covered by other posters here nicely. My main criticism/advise would be to ditch the pre-qualifier / group stuff and just run the whole show as a 128 team max knockout tournament out of the gate. 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 Just run it like the FA cup. Past winner and runner up automatically gets into the draw - otherwise allow 126 teams to put in a billion isk stake and just turn up and try their luck. If you have difficulty with televising of first round then so be it the 64v64 first weekend could be un-broadcast. But broadcast all the rest of the matches to the final. This would as mentioned earlier in the thread remove some of the metagaming / fixed matches and return the tournament to a pure spectacle where the winner needs to win 7 straight matches - the maximum number of potential teams get to enter - and there is giant-killing opportunity for no-namers against the big boys from week 1. I feel in recent years the focus on points manipulation and complicated pre-qualifying rounds have detracted from the pure spirit of the tournament which is "win your match". Join the Revolution!
Narciss Sevar Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.06.15 13:29:00 - [36] Only allow a setup to be used once per tournament.
Shamis Orzoz Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.06.15 13:39:00 - [37] Originally by: Terianna Eri Edited by: Terianna Eri on 15/06/2011 10:24:54 I would not like to see things like "today we do Gallente-only setups". While this will definitely force new kinds of setups, I don't know if it'll actually result in better fights or more inventive setups (i.e. i can forsee restrictions that will result in only one or two obvious fleets that remain good). Additionally, some restrictions may hurt smaller alliances who may simply not have enough pilots to field viable all-Gallente (for example) setups. EDIT: restrictions like "you have to warp in at zero" might be fun though I would like to see (rules changes): -Point cost reduction on HACs, battleship hulls, HICs (cost as much as HACs? lol), faction cruisers, and T1 cruisers. -Point cost increase on logistics and T3s -Restrictions on ECM as it is the least interactive EWAR mechanic and leads to short, swingy fights one way or another. Banning racial ECM is my favorite way to do it so far - if you know what your opponent is going to bring, you should have to do more than say "lol ok bring 3 rooks with amarr jammers" to exploit that. -More sources of remote repping aside from Logi/T3/drones. Maybe 1 RR/ship -Slightly smaller arenas (200k instead of 250k across?) Torn on group stages. On one hand, I like the fact that it allows a way for every team to have at least 3 matches cast on EVETV, which is very cool. Also it allows teams to really plan out their matches since they know who they'll be fighting well ahead of time. On the other hand having matches where the result is literally irrelevant is.. questionable. Irrelevant matches can be fun because either team can bring really whatever they damn well please but also boring because there's nothing riding on it. Personally I lend towards the former - more matches per team and the possibility of having "lols" fights is worth it to me. Would really like prequalifiers to be cast next time. 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. The only way to see more lasers and more blasters would be to lower the point cost of gallente and amarr would be to fine tune the points PER SHIP. Something like: brutix 9 points cyclone 10 points harbinger 12 points hurricane 13 points sleipnir 16 points abso 15 points etc I think the proteus is a great ship, but generally speaking all gallente and amarr ships in the tourney are much weaker than their caldari/minmatar counterparts. There are several notable exceptions like the curse, but you could drop most amarr/gal ship costs by 1 point and I think people would use them a lot, they are just very slightly worse than min/cal.
Mr Rive Black Omega Security Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.06.15 13:45:00 - [38] Yes but they cant do that or CCP would have to admit their ships are unbalanced
thoth rothschild The Priesthood The 0rphanage	Posted - 2011.06.15 14:12:00 - [39] Edited by: thoth rothschild on 15/06/2011 14:12:21 I really love sleipnirs, sabres and cyclones but after 2 years in a row i would like to see somethin' different. Suggestion : Make the ship cost increase per amount of a certain ship. Example 3 Sleipnirs sleipnir 16 + sleipnir 18 + sleipnir 20 = 54 but Example Sleipnir + Astarte + claymore sleipnir 16 + astarte 16 + claymore 16 = 48
M4n1c M1n3r Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.06.15 16:18:00 - [40] Firstly, the things this year that worked well: The 5v5s mixed things up nicely and IÆd like to see them stay. Like everyone else, IÆd love to see them all broadcast in some shape or form. I also agree with others that there shouldnÆt need to be a limit to the number of entrants since the 5v5s could be held over several weekends, a month or more before the actual 32-team æmain eventÆ. Allowing Alliances to be formed for people to compete by setting the deadline AFTER the tourney dates had been announced. I know there were plenty of discussions regarding alt alliances but RvB were only able to compete because of this change. 3 simple things to improve the tourney: 1. It seems the obvious and easiest change to the tourney is to amend the points cost of certain ships. But IMO, rather than have each of us describe our own preference, it would be better to do it based on the ships actually fielded each year. Because of the 1 x logi rule you would need to multiply the number of logis fielded by 3 to correctly gauge their popularity vs the other ships. For example: At the end of the tourney, sort the ship classes by number fielded this year. Increase the cost to the top 25% (those that have been fielded most) by 1 point. Decrease the cost to the bottom 25% by 1 point. Leave the middle 2 quarters as they are. This would provide for a gradual refinement of ship costs based on their actual worth as demonstrated through use, rather than some gut feeling. It would also be very simple to do. 2. Split ship classes into named ships. I know this will make the points list longer and slightly complicate things, but there are very clearly, large differences between the worth of individual ships within each ship class. This change could then be used with number 1 to ensure each shipÆs cost is gradually corrected to reflect its true worth. 3. Rather than wait until 6 weeks before we fight, why not tweak the rules now and get them posted along with (at least some) provisional dates. This will allow the smaller Alliances a better chance of competing against the bigger ones. The bigger alliances have the resources to test many more ideas for longer throughout the year and are therefore better able to adapt to last minute changes. By getting the rules out there earlier, the smaller teams can use what practice time they can get throughout the year practicing actual tourney fleets. As it is, æcrammingÆ in the last couple of weeks while being watched by the neutrals in local does nothing but handicap those that least need it. Better challenges from the smaller and younger teams will be more fun to watch for everyone.

veldftw	Posted - 2011.06.15 18:23:00 - [41] Originally by: thoth rothschild Edited by: thoth rothschild on 15/06/2011 14:34:38 Edited by: thoth rothschild on 15/06/2011 14:12:21 I really love sleipnirs, sabres and cyclones but after 2 years in a row i would like to see somethin' different. Suggestion : Make the ship cost increase per amount of a certain ship. Example 3 Sleipnirs sleipnir 16 + sleipnir 18 + sleipnir 20 = 54 but Example Sleipnir + Astarte + claymore sleipnir 16 + astarte 16 + claymore 16 = 48 or go back to 2 Ships of one type limit. i love people who reply without reading the thread they are replying to.... (read my reply in the first page, near the end)
Thresh Avery Best Path Inc. Cascade Imminent	Posted - 2011.06.15 20:18:00 - [42] Originally by: Kil2 good stuff guys. Quote: Finally, going back to the unique themes, last year somebody said a tournament inside the various wormholes would be interesting; This is something that keeps coming up. One thing i dont like about it is the idea of not knowing what kind of wormhole effect you would have for a match. it would add randomness to the results and i dont think we need that. what if there was a different effect assigned to each day of the tournament? everyone knew what to expect but we would see entirely different types of stuff on each day. Haha, i never suggested it would be random, because that could just screw up any team's chances when they land on the grid - it's a possibility though, but not a good idea. Different phenomena each day could work nicely, it'll force teams to think differently and use different setups, meaning there won't be several alliances using the same setup each time and being predicted by the more experienced teams. Using this year's format: the qualifiers could be 10v10 without phenomena, group stage 1 (wolf rayet), group stage 2 (cataclysmic variable), group stage 3 (black hole), finals day (red giant). Here's the link again for those that aren't familiar with wormhole phenomena - it's halfway down the page. The other method is that CCP could provide an example of the schedule and state that each team in the group stages will have one game inside a wolf rayet, cataclysmic variable and black hole, so the teams know what they'll need to practice for well in advance. That way we could see a mixture of matches of different phenomena in the same day to prevent seeing too much of one phenomena in a day. Originally by: Kil2 I think the biggest problem with that is that seeing the setups evolve over the course of the tournament is fun, and that would be diminished to an extent. i guess teams also wouldnt be as motivated to hold back their really strong stuff until later. but then again that takes away an element of the tournament that we struggle to make guesses about currently. Well by keeping the whole of the finals day to one phenomena it means that we'll be able to see plenty of setups under the same circumstances, which means the experienced teams will still be able to hold back their better setups until the end. I suggested the Red Giant (modifiers to smartbomb range/damage, heat damage and overload bonus) for the finals as it's not too skewed in favour of a certain type of setup. The effects are still there, but teams won't feel they are limited to sticking with only shield setups, for example. And obviously the day of finals should be fixed to just one phenomena, because the day is hectic enough as it is currently. If CCP release the rules of AT X a good 8-10 weeks before it begins and list the phenomena the teams would be facing each day, then there's ample advanced warning for the alliances to prepare for the tournament. Originally by: Kil2 anyway, thanks all. glad some pros stopped by =) Are you suggesting i'm one of those pros? Gutted i'm not playing this year - maybe next time!
Laminar Septimar Gallente German Kings	Posted - 2011.06.16 12:09:00 - [43] Edited by: Laminar Septimar on 16/06/2011 12:13:31 A stacking penalty on the amount of the shiptype of the same Category would be very interesting(E.G. one Recon 13 pt., two Recons 28pt. three Recons 46pt. Increasing the value of each ship) keep Logistics in the 5vs5 but remove them for the 10vs10 Open the 5vs5 for everyone not only to a random picked group. You don't broadcast them at all so why should you care about the number of participants ?
Kagumichan	Posted - 2011.06.16 16:04:00 - [44] Edited by: Kagumichan on 16/06/2011 16:10:17 Limit the amount of EWAR specific ships (e.g/ only 1 rook, 1 kitsune etc.), EWAR fights as everyone knows is booooooring so minimizing them would increase the amount of slug-fest fights we'd see, and maybe we'd see more of the lesser used ships then (more amarr, more gallente etc.) as they'd be less likely to get messed up by jammers, dampners etc. It may even make it a bit easier for the small alliances to have fairer fights and stand a chance of getting anywhere in the AT, as teams such as PL wouldn't be able to use their common-place ewar setup to jam and gank the opposing team (then maybe they may even lose some ships :O) and it'd make the matches more fun to watch and commentate as it wouldn't be a case of "oh this side is losing ALL their ships as expected, the ewar team has no damage as usual blah blah blah yawn" p.s i'm not knocking any of the commentators, they do a great job and i love the rambling during boring bits like when frigs decide to orbit to deny points, it's quite informative sometimes, it's just that seeing the same thing over and over again is a total yawnsville. Seeing a team bring an ewar setup makes me want to fast-forward to the next match in hope that there'll be something different.
Laminar Septimar Gallente Jelly Kings	Posted - 2011.06.16 16:42:00 - [45] Edited by: Laminar Septimar on 16/06/2011 16:43:58 Edited by: Laminar Septimar on 16/06/2011 16:43:17 Another Point I want to mention for the next AT is the Stability and Accessibilty of SiSi; PLS don't run any major updates on it during the AT because it is tedious if you have to download like a 500MB-Patch day by day just to get online! SiSi is of upmost importance for all the Alliances to test and compete their setups with eachother...I remember the first week before the 5vs5 started where I had to download patches or Sisi wasn't online.
FU22 The 8th Order	Posted - 2011.06.16 17:42:00 - [46] People are saying "omg let everyone who applies be in the tourny" but logically this can't happen, over a hundred teams applied didn't they? I suggest bringing in seeding, the fact that Tyrrax Thorrk and his Dystopia Alliance didn't get in this time after being so entertaining in the past is actually ridiculous, Caldari blaster team anyone? (I'm sure a few other entertaining teams didn't get in either but Dystopia is the first I think of). Perhaps CCP + tourny experts can go over who has been in the tourny before and decide who can go through, maybe a limited number of teams who they feel add something to the tourny. Then they can let the cripples fight each other in a straight knock out qualifier round and those that get through can join the rest of the seeded teams. Bring the rule that Ewar that makes fights boring (ECM, Damps, Tracking disruptors?) can only be fit to one ship like the Remote repairers rule, but make it so 2 ships can fit different ewar. So as an example you can have a Rook on your team with ECM AND a Lach with Sensor damps, but all of your team can fit as many Target painters,webifers,scrams etc as it likes. Probably reduce the points of Recons after this change as they will lose value. (Just a rough idea do not burn me too hard for this ) More ships/points? Reduce points on battleships/flagships. Allow teams to field as many of any ship they like but make the points cost raises slightly (Number increase to be decided by someone with their Mathematics skill trained higher then me ) I personally would like the size of the arena to be reduced, this will encourage less Caldari missle *gotry and more BLASTERS OWNAGE, although Amarr will be victor but I reckon seeing loads of amarr is better then loads of Caldari, as Amarr will be mostly armour tanked thus slower which means more BLASTER OWNAGE. Alternatively make Tengus and drakes cost more points then their counterparts (Troll) . And I just thought instead of making only one ship allowed to fit Remote repairers, how about limiting it to a select amount of Remote repairers? Think about it, if you can fit 4 RRs to whatever ships you like, what ships are flown with Remote reps? This might be a horrible idea but it makes me think we would see more Battleships which is always good right? RIGHT? No doubt I will return to see what holes people have found with my ideas... Also kil2 whens your next eve video out Originally by:** Millie Clode Dear santa, for christmas I would like an endless supply of noobs to march across my screen so I can pretend I'm playing duck hunt
Kagumichan	Posted - 2011.06.16 21:38:00 - [47] I like the idea of limiting remote reppers but allowing them to be on multiple ships, it'd make for some interesting setups in fact 'cos then you'd be able to put in a guardian but put your reppers on other ships and use the logi ship as bait, sure other ships wouldn't be as good as a logi ship for repping but you could tank out the guardian and it'd take a second for the opponents FC to realise his mistake, by then it could be too late. Making the arena smaller sounds fun too, we'd see more Amarr and Gallente heavy teams and maybe even some lesser used weapon types (rockets anyone? :D). It'd make a nice change from the ranged caldari setups we see a lot lately and even ewar setups would struggle when their opponent is already in their face, and it'd make bomber setups more dangerous, so veteran AT teams would have to drastically rethink their more used and abused winning setups or make new ones. Plus with a smaller arena there'd be a few more "oopsies" with boundary violations from the smaller faster ships like frigs and destroyers and make pilots concentrate more on getting into the thick of things, and it'd help stop Dramiels and Daredevils from doing Darius's fabled 'heroic orbit maneuver' :D
Helios Diaz Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.06.17 00:25:00 - [48] Edited by: Helios Diaz on 17/06/2011 00:26:07 I had this crazy thought about undershipping... what if you only fielded 90 points, and win the match. Let that team bring 1/2 the points to the next match. So... an extra 5 point bonus for their fleet to field if they want to. This could lead to some unexpected events, and maybe the "static/standard/cookie cutter" fleets that we keep seeing would get a little crazier. I can imagine some seriously crazy meta-gaming. You're in the quarterfinals and you get the other team to throw the match (in combat, not by a no-show), giving you a total of 150 points vs. PL on the other side. Now... the odds are a little more interesting. Eve isn't balanced... why not knock the system out of a whack a bit.
Jaigar	Posted - 2011.06.17 00:58:00 - [49] Originally by: Helios Diaz Edited by: Helios Diaz on 17/06/2011 00:26:07 I had this crazy thought about undershipping... what if you only fielded 90 points, and win the match. Let that team bring 1/2 the points to the next match. So... an extra 5 point bonus for their fleet to field if they want to. This could lead to some unexpected events, and maybe the "static/standard/cookie cutter" fleets that we keep seeing would get a little crazier. I can imagine some seriously crazy meta-gaming. You're in the quarterfinals and you get the other team to throw the match (in combat, not by a no-show), giving you a total of 150 points vs. PL on the other side. Now... the odds are a little more interesting. Eve isn't balanced... why not knock the system out of a whack a bit. It would be incredibly easy to win the AT by paying someone off. Simply put, I could find someone to argee to throw the match in the quarterfinals in exhange for 20 or so runs of the reward ship + a few billion isk. 50 point potential advantage is way too signficant. You are basicly giving them 3 T3s for free. Not a good idea IMO. Also, I thought EVE players understood that simple solutions are often the best....
Don Pellegrino Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED	Posted - 2011.06.17 02:30:00 - [50] Top 8 or maybe even 16 from this year need to have a free pass for next year. We're missing out on some quality teams this year. Make the arena 150km radius instead of 125km? ____________________________________________

Kagumichan	Posted - 2011.06.17 06:38:00 - [51] Originally by: Don Pellegrino Top 8 or maybe even 16 from this year need to have a free pass for next year. We're missing out on some quality teams this year. Make the arena 150km radius instead of 125km? Increasing the radius would only increase the amount of Caldari kite setups we see, Tengus already spend too much time in the spotlight, with a decreased radius we may begin to see Legions and more Proteus, with a better mix of ships all around.
Toterra Lobster Exogalactic	Posted - 2011.06.17 17:14:00 - [52] I say for next tourney do either 1. Encourage frigates/T1 cruisers by reducing points to 75 per team or 2. Encourage Battleships by increasing points to 150 per team Lest not have another tourney dominated by BC sized hulls and T2 cruisers.
Alice Pink	Posted - 2011.06.18 05:41:00 - [53] Introduce stacking penalties for chip classes. Could be as simple as. 1st Recon :13 pts 2nd Recon :14 pts And/or also: 1st Rook :13 pts 2nd Rook :15 pts etc. This will completely change the sorts of teams being fielded.
Ein Phantom	Posted - 2011.06.18 06:49:00 - [54] Originally by: veldftw 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 For the love of everything entertaining, THIS This idea has been repeated five times BY INDEPENDENT POSTERS in this thread alone. <3
Patient 2428190 DEGRREE'Fo'FREE Internet Business School	Posted - 2011.06.18 09:13:00 - [55] Televise the 5 on 5. Televise every match I'm sure you think its cute to have your experts and your staff play amateur TV anchorman, but I'd would be watching all the fights without any studio stuff or audio commentary over what we have now. Honestly, could care less, its about the fights. Increase the Recon point value, the EAF point value and the Interdictor requirements Decrease HAC, Tier 2 BC and Faction Battleship point requirements ...Then when you stopped to think about it. All you really said was Lalala.
kloma	Posted - 2011.06.18 11:01:00 - [56] id like a random arena size (150, 100, 75, 50 radius) i like the idea of repeating ships going up in cost as well, because it makes a lot of the other changes requested happen also, with things like rooks, tengus, sleips all being heavily repeated.
Sakura Nihil Selective Pressure Rote Kapelle	Posted - 2011.06.18 13:18:00 - [57] Edited by: Sakura Nihil on 18/06/2011 13:19:02 My biggest wish is to bring faction cruisers and HACs back into favor in the tourney. In the past, we've seen a lot of use from cruisers like the Phantasm, Omen Navy Issue, and Vexor Navy Issue, in addition to HACs like Deimos, Ishtars, and Cerberus. Even the basic T1 cruiser, which has ridden to glory in the past, has been neglected this tournament. My bonus wish would be to lessen the limit on having the same ship types, so that we could see 4 or 5 of the same ship, or even remove it altogether (preferable for me). That said, I think ATX could benefit by being a slugfest, its gotten a bit too EW- and Logistic-focused lately. PS: You don't have to televise every match, that's hard especially considering if the tourney expands to 128 teams competing someday. But at least let third parties, like EVE Radio, come on-site and broadcast the matches for us to hear.
Ophey Won Heretic Army	Posted - 2011.06.18 13:34:00 - [58] Pre rank teams before the tournament. Even in the pre qualifiers. You could then match the stronger teams against weaker teams in early matches. I also think this would get rid of some of the meta gaming we see in matches.
Glasgow Dunlop	Posted - 2011.06.18 15:17:00 - [59] what about secondary teams being allowed in, so say your top 16 teams that get in already, and let the 2nd teams try and come thru the qualifiers :)
Thresh Avery Best Path Inc. Cascade Imminent	Posted - 2011.06.18 22:19:00 - [60] Originally by: Ophey Won Pre rank teams before the tournament. Even in the pre qualifiers. You could then match the stronger teams against weaker teams in early matches. I also think this would get rid of some of the meta gaming we see in matches. That's not a bad idea actually, but CCP may find it difficult or time-consuming to accurately rank teams from past tournaments. For example, say Agony Empire got into AT X, how would you rank them? Their team could have changed a bit in the two years since they last competed, they did okay last time but better the time before that - how do you rate that amongst the other alliances? I'm not sure how ranking the teams would prevent meta-gaming though, to be fair.



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.