Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Suleiman Shouaa
The Tuskers
181
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 22:08:00 -
[31] - Quote
Point rebalancing for hulls needs to change, for example Tech1 Battleships. Best way to figure out which hulls these are is by looking at ship usage stats (if you keep an eye on such things). If not, a short list:
Tech1 Battleships Black Ops BS Tier 3 Battlecruisers EAFs Bombers
All could do with a 1-2 point reduction. I agree that the Tech1 Ewar frigates need to have their points adjusted by 1 to 3 as they are simply too good.
I would probably suggest putting a hard limit of 1 cap transfer on each hull to reduce the proliferation of perma-spider setups as at the 8 man stage with only 3-4 real DPS ships, breaking them is very, very difficult if they are accompanied by the correct bans. They don't make for entertaining matches for most people IMO, which is one of the things Eve struggles with when trying to attract new players.
Btw fantastic job with the tournament. |
Bacchanalian
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
193
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 22:55:00 -
[32] - Quote
Suleiman Shouaa wrote:
I would probably suggest putting a hard limit of 1 cap transfer on each hull to reduce the proliferation of perma-spider setups as at the 8 man stage with only 3-4 real DPS ships, breaking them is very, very difficult if they are accompanied by the correct bans. They don't make for entertaining matches for most people IMO, which is one of the things Eve struggles with when trying to attract new players.
Btw fantastic job with the tournament.
More to the point, when you can effectively ban out the two highest DPS platforms in the subcapital lineup, it's even worse. I think estimates of tank numbers on that setup I've heard thrown around were somewhere in the 5k range. Breaking 5k DPS with Vindi/Kronos bans and a setup that is something that would survive long enough to apply that DPS is extremely challenging in the context of our ruleset, so I agree, something needs to be done about the cap xfer issue. Limiting to 1 is an option we have on the table, though we're looking at a couple of possibilities. |
SpeedY G0nZaleZ
Ars ex Discordia Test Alliance Please Ignore
17
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 00:58:00 -
[33] - Quote
To better finely balance the points you could start using .5 values for some of the smaller ships such as destroyers which appear to me to be worth 2.5 points.
I love the idea of splitting points for pirate / navy / unique ships instead of blanket "faction". Increasing the points on EWAR frigates. Adding in all the ships and lowering the points for industrials/bombers/hics. Rooking (and faction rookie) ships would be cool to have for 1 point and might even be moderately useful.
Some other things you could consider may be the size of the arena, number of pilots on field, allowing 2 logistics, one cruiser, one frigate.
If you really want to shake things up then MJDs, larger arenas, unique ships, 16 man / 110 point teams. You can try the gimicks and see how they go.
Oh and more points / ships is a good way to counteract turtle tank setups. |
Bacchanalian
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
193
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 01:05:00 -
[34] - Quote
MJDs are allowed. As far as I know at least one team was on the verge of fielding an MJD setup but changed at the last moment and another team had one in reserve that they opted not to field.
As for double logistics--there's a very good reason AT4 was the last time we saw those. They made for terrible matches and had exactly the same issue we're trying to address with the tinker tank setups--turtle setups that were extremely difficult to break and the possibility existing of turtle vs turtle leading to a stalemate that could in theory go on infinitely.
We had kicked around the notion of further granulating the points down to half points, or simply doubling the cap and current points, but I'm not sure that's going to solve any of the issues we're facing--it would simply shake up the meta.
I think our priority for now is solving the issues that became obvious in week 2, and after that we'll sit down to look at broader changes like format, arena size, time limits, etc. We're currently working on and should have by tomorrow a full spreadsheet of all shiptypes fielded as well as how many of them died, and which were banned, and that should give us a good idea of what ships might need reconsideration either because they were extremely popular, or not fielded at all. |
SpeedY G0nZaleZ
Ars ex Discordia Test Alliance Please Ignore
17
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 01:08:00 -
[35] - Quote
WRT having a cruiser and a frigate logistics on field I don't think that would cause too many issues. Two cruiser logistics would be unbreakable. |
Tyrrax Thorrk
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
193
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 01:27:00 -
[36] - Quote
Bob Shaftoes wrote:I know roughly how the PL proteus was fit by the configuration of the subsystems and by an image that gobbs posted of it during the match. Someone on my team calculated that with the diso sub + 2 local eccm + 2 remote eccm + max skilled would bring the sensor strength to something like 350 before heat and therefore around 400+ with heat. 2 info war linked ( proteus, max skills + electronic sup link ) griffins with 4 multispecs each and optimized for max jamming only jammed the logi proteus once, and even then the griffin died mid jam cycle.
Oh so you were just making **** up, good to know. |
DHB WildCat
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
198
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 02:39:00 -
[37] - Quote
My thoughts.
Your point system is fine tbh! I admit maybe the t1 ew frigs need to be higher, but honestly thats it.
What would solve this problem!? Go to the 10 man 100 pt system.
I dont care how strong your circle jerk is then, you are not tanking 10k dps. This is the one time I think I'll ever say this in EVE. More is better. Tinker tanking is strong against few opponents. But fail against many. |
Anaphylacti
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
5
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 03:14:00 -
[38] - Quote
Bacchanalian wrote:Suleiman Shouaa wrote:
I would probably suggest putting a hard limit of 1 cap transfer on each hull to reduce the proliferation of perma-spider setups as at the 8 man stage with only 3-4 real DPS ships, breaking them is very, very difficult if they are accompanied by the correct bans. They don't make for entertaining matches for most people IMO, which is one of the things Eve struggles with when trying to attract new players.
Btw fantastic job with the tournament.
More to the point, when you can effectively ban out the two highest DPS platforms in the subcapital lineup, it's even worse. I think estimates of tank numbers on that setup I've heard thrown around were somewhere in the 5k range. Breaking 5k DPS with Vindi/Kronos bans and a setup that is something that would survive long enough to apply that DPS is extremely challenging in the context of our ruleset, so I agree, something needs to be done about the cap xfer issue. Limiting to 1 is an option we have on the table, though we're looking at a couple of possibilities.
You do realize that the tinker tank wasn't perfect and that it was defeated. Also, the fact that this tournament takes place in the course of two days and hardly gives time to properly test and prepare a counter compared to the weeks time you get in normal AT, months time really in the span of an entire AT. We were shown that you can kill the tinker tank if you don't take such a ham-fisted approach like "MOAR DEEPS".
Are you going to ban the next comp that heavily relies on certain modules because other teams weren't good enough to come up with a counter? Where do you draw the line? Why not just pre-fab some rock-paper-scissors comps for us and make them the only option all in the name of "having fun and putting on a good show".
A single weekend's results is definitely not enough time to make such sweeping changes. In fact, module restrictions should be the absolute last resort when it comes to balancing. |
Bacchanalian
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
193
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 03:26:00 -
[39] - Quote
Two days? We announced the dates well in advance as far as I know. And we've already announced the next one as mid-May. That's a lot of time to prepare.
As for the tinker tank, yes, it was countered. By a very pointed setup designed specifically to counter the tinker tank and pretty much crushed by any other cookie cutter setup. So teams are faced with the choice--bring the tinker counter every time and hope that's what they face, or bring another setup and hope they don't get tinker tank. It's a bit too rock paper scissors in my personal view, and while the piloting involves skill, at the end of the day the setup is strong enough that minor mistakes won't lose the match for the tinker setup. In a lot of the matches we saw counters fielded and lose because of piloting error. It would take an egregious mistake for a tinker setup to lose to most setups that weren't specifically designed to counter it.
I don't know if we're going to change anything as of yet, but can you come up with a way for two tinker setups to end in anything other than a stalemate? As far as I can see they can permanently run everything, so barring a lucky jam here or there and a frigate getting blapped, you'd have a 10 minute stalemate that under our current rules would go on until a single ship died--which could be downtime. That more than anything is what I want to avoid. It's less the tinker v *, it's the tinker v tinker that is an absolute nightmare in terms of a) viewer interest, b) being able to have SOMETHING to talk about as a commentator, and generally not being the most boring display imaginable.
Keep in mind we're planning to run this tournament on a monthly/6 week basis, and as such little tweaks from one tournament to the next will happen to keep things fresh. PL is a very strong team and I have no doubt that your theorycrafters will come up with extremely strong setups no matter what we do with the rules, so I'd not be so worried. And if we change something that has an unintended effect or breaks the format a bit? We change it back the next time and search for another solution. The benefit we have that the AT/NEO do not is that we run this often enough that we can make these changes with a bit more freedom.
Believe me though when I say we aren't looking to completely wipe that sort of tanking out of the tournament. We just want to balance it a bit more so there is more than one counter to it, for instance an overwhelming DPS setup (which as far as I can see would not have beaten it under the current rules). |
Blast x
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
2
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 04:30:00 -
[40] - Quote
Bacchanalian wrote:Two days? We announced the dates well in advance as far as I know. And we've already announced the next one as mid-May. That's a lot of time to prepare.
As for the tinker tank, yes, it was countered. By a very pointed setup designed specifically to counter the tinker tank and pretty much crushed by any other cookie cutter setup. So teams are faced with the choice--bring the tinker counter every time and hope that's what they face, or bring another setup and hope they don't get tinker tank. It's a bit too rock paper scissors in my personal view, and while the piloting involves skill, at the end of the day the setup is strong enough that minor mistakes won't lose the match for the tinker setup. In a lot of the matches we saw counters fielded and lose because of piloting error. It would take an egregious mistake for a tinker setup to lose to most setups that weren't specifically designed to counter it.
I don't know if we're going to change anything as of yet, but can you come up with a way for two tinker setups to end in anything other than a stalemate? As far as I can see they can permanently run everything, so barring a lucky jam here or there and a frigate getting blapped, you'd have a 10 minute stalemate that under our current rules would go on until a single ship died--which could be downtime. That more than anything is what I want to avoid. It's less the tinker v *, it's the tinker v tinker that is an absolute nightmare in terms of a) viewer interest, b) being able to have SOMETHING to talk about as a commentator, and generally not being the most boring display imaginable.
Keep in mind we're planning to run this tournament on a monthly/6 week basis, and as such little tweaks from one tournament to the next will happen to keep things fresh. PL is a very strong team and I have no doubt that your theorycrafters will come up with extremely strong setups no matter what we do with the rules, so I'd not be so worried. And if we change something that has an unintended effect or breaks the format a bit? We change it back the next time and search for another solution. The benefit we have that the AT/NEO do not is that we run this often enough that we can make these changes with a bit more freedom.
Believe me though when I say we aren't looking to completely wipe that sort of tanking out of the tournament. We just want to balance it a bit more so there is more than one counter to it, for instance an overwhelming DPS setup (which as far as I can see would not have beaten it under the current rules).
as some other duder said on the other thread ..viewer interests can't be set to brawl teams or tinker teams or thingyes explodeing or complex setups. its limiting ..some ppl watch for "explosions" some ppl watch for intense complex battles ..(i enjoyed all of the games ) and while it is true our combo wasant easily beaten specialy by raw dmg ..what sort of strong setups loose to full on raw dmg ? tunneled vision into only brawl setups isn't .. fun. while i agree eve isnt a crit based game ..forceing it to be just that ..a crit based raw full dps game is a poor choice for something called tournament. but then your only choice is to set up rules and regulations and then be amaysed of what ppl bring ...and dont make mistake thinking ppl dont bring their best setups to WIN ..not only to loose ..funny part is that when we had the sleip rush tank wich is kindda hard countered by the blasters .. everybody started explaining why we flown badly ..when fact is ..rock >>scissors tank.how would have that been more "entertaining" playng catch me mwd around the arena for 10 minutes?we gracefully accepted it a loosing battle with a filler setup and charged it for the "fun" of the viewers. cant expect ppl to bring bad setups just to make sure some ppl "enjoy" viewing ..unless its all fixed and decided on the board whom wins and whom doesnt. |
|
Anaphylacti
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
5
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 06:41:00 -
[41] - Quote
Bacchanalian wrote:Two days? We announced the dates well in advance as far as I know. And we've already announced the next one as mid-May. That's a lot of time to prepare.
...
Believe me though when I say we aren't looking to completely wipe that sort of tanking out of the tournament. We just want to balance it a bit more so there is more than one counter to it, for instance an overwhelming DPS setup (which as far as I can see would not have beaten it under the current rules).
Two days as in they saw the comps people would bring on the first day, then they had 24 hours to devise some sort of way to counter it if they didn't already prepare a counter.
Again... the ham-fisted approach... sure you could nerf everything so that everyone only brings triple faction bs setups and the only meta is overwhelming dps. There will be tons of explosions and stuff for you to talk about but it won't be very fun to watch when every team brings the same setups. There will be less strategy, variation, or thought involved. Tinker tank was specifically designed to counter overwhelming dps and overwhelming dps shouldn't be the answer to everything. the previous and still current meta is all triple faction bs and you are saying that that should be a valid counter to all things.
The counter we saw to the turtle tinker is still valid in different matches given that blasters are also really popular in the current meta.
There are other counters for the tinker it's just that people weren't prepared/ couldn't figure them out.
|
Bacchanalian
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
193
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 07:25:00 -
[42] - Quote
On the flip side, it will be an equally boring tournament if everyone shows up in tinker tanks rather than overwhelming DPS.
We want balance, not ham-fisted nerfs. I have no idea what we're going to do, but I literally have the most radical views on the changes of anyone in the SCL staff, so don't think that because I've said I'm thinking about something we're going to do just that. I'm a worst-case scenario kinda guy that identifies the worst possible problem that could arise, which is useful for identifying issues but less useful for coming up with coherent, sane, and gentle solutions that don't rock the boat overly much. We have others on the staff better suited for that. I tend to throw out radical ideas and they get tuned down to sane options by other perspectives.
That said, it's safe to say that the exact current tinker tank meta will likely not survive. It may exist in a slightly altered form, but something will most likely change to shake it up a little. Fine-tuning is part of the process here, and much like CCP, we want to challenge the teams to devise new and creative strategies from tournament to tournament rather than simply coming back with the same tried and true metas. You'll see similar things in any eSport I can think of. In SC2 nerfs and buffs happen and change the meta from tournament to tournament, in LoL new champions come out, items are adjusted, minion HP and AI is altered, champions are balanced--all of these change metas and strategies and challenge the teams to devise new strategies. While EVE also does change things up (and may well have the new battleships on Sisi by the next tournament, though I suspect they won't land until later in May/early June after week 3), it makes sense for us to alter the rules a bit from week to week to keep things fresh.
As I said before though, PL has some brilliant tacticians and a very strong team. I was briefly in PL during tournament season and was in the tournament forums for a while and got some insight into the sorts of theorycrafting and effort that goes into your teams and it is quite impressive. I have no doubt that no matter what we do with the rules, PL will come to the table with some of the strongest team comps and strategies of anyone in the tournament and everyone will be learning from what you do.
EDIT: I should also mention that we've completed our stats compilation on ships flown/banned/destroyed and will be taking a look at that. It should make apparent the things we're already discussing re; bombers/EAFs/ewar frigs and probably highlight some other things we may have missed. |
Admiral Goberius
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
10
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 08:48:00 -
[43] - Quote
Bacchanalian wrote: As for the tinker tank, yes, it was countered. By a very pointed setup designed specifically to counter the tinker tank and pretty much crushed by any other cookie cutter setup. So teams are faced with the choice--bring the tinker counter every time and hope that's what they face, or bring another setup and hope they don't get tinker tank. It's a bit too rock paper scissors in my personal view, and while the piloting involves skill, at the end of the day the setup is strong enough that minor mistakes won't lose the match for the tinker setup. In a lot of the matches we saw counters fielded and lose because of piloting error. It would take an egregious mistake for a tinker setup to lose to most setups that weren't specifically designed to counter it.
No.
We countered our own golem tinker easy peasy in our match vs dystopia. No neuts involved.
This thread was supposed to be about point balance but instead you got FHC babby coming back with his rant about tinker setup and thats all the last page has been about.
Frankly there are many weaknesses to a turtle tank but the existence of this kind of setup enriches the meta because it is a strong counter to kiting high damage setups such as 2 stage sleipnirs or double tanked machs that would otherwise dominate the tourney (see: scl 1).
The problem isnt tinker tanks the problem is stalemates. Every game has a system to detect and handle stalemates, from dota to starcraft to freaking chess. No amount of banning will take stalemates completely out of the game. I suggested a stalemate detection system earlier but there are many possible, from shrinking arena to a gradually raising dps field applied to all ships, resists being lowered, ecc...
|
Lucas Quaan
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
45
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 08:50:00 -
[44] - Quote
FIWI, I agree completely with Bacchanalian on the gradual tweaks bit. Change is good and makes the theorycrafting/meta so much more interesting. Since it's on on a bi-monthly schedule and everything happens on SiSi, this gives you an opportunity to try some stuff and have a fun tournament now and then that is more relaxed than the high-stakes AT.
Sure, sometimes a rule change will be aimed at a specific setup or tactic that you had success with, but then you load up EFT and find another one. It would be sad and boring to see the same setups and a static meta every single time. |
Fafer
Tr0pa de elite. Pandemic Legion
26
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 08:50:00 -
[45] - Quote
Let the bans stay for the duration of each best of 3. Like, ships that were banned in the first fight stays banned for second and third, and on top of that ships banned in 2nd fight stays banned for 3rd.
That would accomplish variety of fielded hulls. Low SP players have chance to come to masstests.
|
Fafer
Tr0pa de elite. Pandemic Legion
26
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 09:09:00 -
[46] - Quote
Bacchanalian wrote:MJDs are allowed. As far as I know at least one team was on the verge of fielding an MJD setup but changed at the last moment and another team had one in reserve that they opted not to field.
It gives the same end result as on-grid warping, which is forbidden for a reason. MJDs should not be allowed. It doesn't matter that they have cooldown timer, in 8v8 within given timeframe of the match once is enough.
|
Blast x
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
3
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 10:20:00 -
[47] - Quote
"we want to challenge the teams to devise new and creative strategies from tournament to tournament rather than simply coming back with the same tried and true metas." its totaly unheard of the 2 same boring*read dull* concepts with 3 tech3s +logi or 3bs ..isnt like been there since scl1 or into this most of this tourney ..or next one aswell ? (based on having mauluses on field or not) ITS GATECAMPING MECHANICS .. GO AT 0 .SHOOT.(hope you get more CRITS then the enemy)
:D |
Admiral Goberius
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
10
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 10:57:00 -
[48] - Quote
Fafer wrote:Bacchanalian wrote:MJDs are allowed. As far as I know at least one team was on the verge of fielding an MJD setup but changed at the last moment and another team had one in reserve that they opted not to field. It gives the same end result as on-grid warping, which is forbidden for a reason. MJDs should not be allowed. It doesn't matter that they have cooldown timer, in 8v8 within given timeframe of the match once is enough.
MJD does not break locks so it doesnt affect the camera |
Bluemelon
Fairlight Corp Rooks and Kings
37
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 11:38:00 -
[49] - Quote
Going to say a few words on behalf of the Insurance Fraud guys,
This tournament we tried to move away from the tripple Maulus/ t1 ewar frig setups and we paid the price for it. These ewar frigs at 2 points each destroy enemy teams on their own as proven by our first match against perihelion.
Control and power vs Points...nothing beats them. This should be addressed as EAF's - Originally a v strong AT ships and very specific to train - are now totally obsolete...especially as a maulus can damp out a keres at way longer ranges.
Next up is the black ops....They are totally obsolete in AT as we also proved other than the Widow...changing the entire class points for a single ship is pointless.
Marauders - Increasing marauders to 19 will nerf alot of setups and start forcing more rush/cruisers/BC setups...if that is the intention then go for it but there will be significantly less slugfests in this case.
Next up is the match organisation: Please please please alternate matches. Going 3 in a row in an hour is not viable and leads to delays and issues with setups and timing.
ALso lets have a 3rd place play off! More space ships blowing up isnt a bad thing!!
As the first saturday was a little dry on matches, would it be possible to maybe run a kind of qualification matches? so the first 4 teams from previous tournament get in....then 8 teams battle it for the remaining 4 places? BO1 only?
Just a thought
Blue Insurance Fraud SCL Team |
Cavalira
The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
97
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 13:35:00 -
[50] - Quote
It's always possible to ban the maulus and griffins. |
|
Fafer
Tr0pa de elite. Pandemic Legion
26
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 14:09:00 -
[51] - Quote
Blast x wrote:when can we have the ruleset and the points thingy ? so we can get the hamsters goin? :D
It was said that SCL team will have a meeting this weekend, I would say not before that.
However, I belive enough input has been made here and on the FHC so SCL people kindly make your choices and let us know.
|
Tyrrax Thorrk
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
193
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 14:10:00 -
[52] - Quote
Bacchanalian wrote:As for the tinker tank, yes, it was countered. By a very pointed setup designed specifically to counter the tinker tank and pretty much crushed by any other cookie cutter setup.
Uh says who ? Crushed by any other cookie cutter setup ? wat ? |
Fafer
Tr0pa de elite. Pandemic Legion
26
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 15:07:00 -
[53] - Quote
Ben Booley wrote:Elise Randolph wrote: Single elimination best of 3 is a really fantastic design, if logistically horrifying to compete in. I think you can alleviate some of the burden and increase the overall quality by alternating matches. So on the final day when there was PL vs GHSC and Insurance Fraud vs Reputation Cartel to format could be PL vs GHSC game 1, then IF vs RC game 1, then PL vs GHSC game 2, IF vs RC game 2, etc etc.
I completely agree with this. Will be pitching an adjustment along these lines to the rest of the staff, but I agree that 15 minutes is barely enough time for the teams to prep, and at the same time is about as long as we can do between individual matches.
This.
SCL 1 was double elimination and BO3, and Insurance Fraud flew 16 fight in 2 days, and would have to fly 19 (21?) if there had been no unlucky DCing. (GG anyway, Exodunks) So single elimination is wholehartedly welcomed improvement and please don't rollback.
With alternating fights it would be possible to eat something in peace, make bio, stretch a bit and fights would be more on schedule as teams would be ready. That would probably be handy for audience too, and for SCL organisation team. |
Anaphylacti
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
5
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 17:39:00 -
[54] - Quote
I don't mind specifically tuning the rules to avoid certain comps. My point of contention was the 1 cap transfer limit idea thrown out. There are other ways of eliminating tinker tanks as people suggested, more players, increase ship points, etc..
Like your metaphor, it would be the equivalent of an sc2 tourney saying you are only allowed to build so many zerglings or zealots or marines.
I reiterate, module bans should be the last resort to any rule changes as it not only affects the one comp but others as well and overall kills the creativity a sandbox game like Eve is known for.
Anyway, marauders probably could do with an increase in points and maybe swap points for T1 Battleships and Blops (17 current) with Command Ships and Strategic Cruisers (16 current). |
Suleiman Shouaa
The Tuskers
182
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 18:17:00 -
[55] - Quote
No doubt that Tech1 Ewar Frigates were the real stars of this tournament, that much utility in a 2 point frigate is pretty insane.
There are examples of tournament rules taking over where game balance hasn't caught up - examples being recently released heroes in Dota not being allowed in competitive play until iteration on them occurs. In Eve where there are multiple "modes" of play it is very easy for something which on TQ is "balanced" due to it being a free environment to be unbalanced in a fixed setting.
Also, why not allow capitals for example? Sure they can be broken with enough DPS and/or Ewar, but I think we can all agree that most comps would struggle against a comp with a capital in it. |
Bacchanalian
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
195
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 18:35:00 -
[56] - Quote
Yeah, the challenge is going to be if the uptdated ships are released on Sisi before the next tournament.
As far as when we'll have the changes ready? I'm waiting to hear from Fozzie (if he can even tell me) if the ship changes will be live on Sisi by our next iteration, but we're planning on having a meeting this weekend and will hammer out the details then. So expect to hear something by Monday.
Also, someone said the black ops were useless--did you miss Pandemic Legion's matches? They used Sins quite effectively... |
Seijen
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
1
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 21:01:00 -
[57] - Quote
Pandemic wouldn't let us use our Blacks Ops...so scared. |
Anaphylacti
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
5
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 21:17:00 -
[58] - Quote
3rd-4th place fight definitely needs to be included.
As for the first day being a bit light, besides the fact that all matches were 2-0 washouts, perhaps a pole position captains battle royal where bracket seeds will be determined in order of elimination. It adds a bet more strategy and metagaming to the mix as far as what seed you end up in.
The top seeds would get choice of ban order and seeds would go:
1st (last man standing) - 5th (4th elim)
2nd (7th elim) - 6th (3rd elim)
3rd (6th elim) - 7th (2nd elim)
4th (5th elim) - 8th(1st elim)
Although it would probably be gamed to make sure you fight against test for the first round... |
Bob Shaftoes
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
11
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 23:46:00 -
[59] - Quote
Anaphylacti wrote:I don't mind specifically tuning the rules to avoid certain comps. My point of contention was the 1 cap transfer limit idea thrown out. There are other ways of eliminating tinker tanks as people suggested, more players, increase ship points, etc..
Like your metaphor, it would be the equivalent of an sc2 tourney saying you are only allowed to build so many zerglings or zealots or marines.
I reiterate, module bans should be the last resort to any rule changes as it not only affects the one comp but others as well and overall kills the creativity a sandbox game like Eve is known for.
Anyway, marauders probably could do with an increase in points and maybe swap points for T1 Battleships and Blops (17 current) with Command Ships and Strategic Cruisers (16 current).
Edit: Also, should probably put a precedent now for faction battlecruisers since they may or may not be available for SCL 3 and I'd like the Gnosis to be included somewhere in there as I like it's jack of all trades/master of none approach and isn't so rediculously overpowered like the AT or pirate noobships that it should be barred from the tourney.
I agree wholeheartedly with this post.
Restricting cap transfers to one per ship would be one of the worst things you can do as it would stifle creativity somewhat and create an artificial barrier in tourney play.
As far as points go I think things should look more like the following:
Pirate BS - 20 points Marauders - 19 points ( arguably as powerful as faction bs and lots more utility. The gimped resists is the reason for the point drop ) Navy BS - 18 ( 18 or 19 would be a good price point for these as 20 is way too much compared with the pirate ones ) Black ops / t1 BS - 16 ( drop these a point purely to get more use out of them. triple dps BS comps would be interesting too ) CS / tech3 - 16 ( Quite balanced for 16 points ) Recons - 13 ( recons need a bit of love, 14 is too much )
HACs / Faction cruisers / Hics - 10 ( these need a SIGNIFICANT reduction in points. Only the gila and ishtar are really used. If you look at the gap between a mega and a vindi the gap in points is 17-20 points, a gap of 3 for significant improvement. The same difference between a thorax and vigilant is currently 5 points ,which is a whole support ship, and the vigilant isn't as much of a significant improvement for that gap in points. )
BCs - 12 ( 12 is fair for what these hulls can do ) Logi - 13 / 10 Cruiser - 7 Bomber - 5 or 4 ( they need a reduction, but I feel 4 is a bit low )
EAFs / tech 1 ewar - 3 / 4 ( I feel as it stands EAFs and t1 ewar frigs are roughly on par with each other and should be pointed together at either t1 ewar frig at 3 and EAF at 4 or both at 4 )
Intys / Dictors / Dessies - 3 T1 frigs - 2
Another thing I would consider is to reduce the number of duplicate ships down to two of each type. This will produce much more varied comps using a far wider range of ship classes and will stop people stacking ewar frigs especially and the more OP ship types in a class, such as the merlin |
Bluemelon
Fairlight Corp Rooks and Kings
37
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 10:34:00 -
[60] - Quote
Bob Shaftoes wrote:
Another thing I would consider is to reduce the number of duplicate ships down to two of each type. This will produce much more varied comps using a far wider range of ship classes and will stop people stacking ewar frigs especially and the more OP ship types in a class, such as the merlin
I do not agree with this in the slightest. 3 per ship type is fine. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |