EVE Search - Third Alliance Tournament

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Gatherings and Events

Third Alliance Tournament - Rules Discussion

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 7 post(s)

LeMonde	Posted - 2006.09.25 16:16:00 - [1] Several things regarding the rules and format of the third alliance tournament have now been decided. We will use the same format as last time, possibly with more alliances per bracket, or more brackets. Each ship can fit only one Stasis Webifier. Each ship can fit only one Target Painter. Faction implants are staying in. Crystal implats will most likely be looked at and balanced. Capacitor Injectors are staying in. If there is a draw, we go to best 2 out of 3 Assault Frigate duels. The entry fee is 1b ISK, which will be refunded if the alliance participates in all its matches. The starting range has been changed to 30km Additionally, we are changing to a points-based system, where teams have 21 points to select a team setup. Faction Battleship 12 Tier 3 Battleship 11 Tier 2 Battleship 10 Tier 1 Battleship 9 T2 Battlecruiser 8 T1 Battlecruiser 7 T2 Cruiser 6 T1 Cruiser 5 T2 Destroyer 4 T1 Destroyer 3 T2 Frigate 2 T1 Frigate 1 Restrictions: No more than one battleship. No more than one battlecruiser. No more than one of each cruser type (no team can have two HAC's. Combat recon and force recon count as the same type.). A maximum of five pilots per team. These issues are still open for discussion. If you feel you have valuable input, don't hesitate to post.

Sivona Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.09.25 17:03:00 - [2] Edited by: Sivona on 25/09/2006 17:03:46 While the concept of points is good to encourage mixed team and not limit those with no access to T2/faction ships, the implementation is frankly shocking. For a start and rememeber these are tournament conditions not standard TQ. T1 Battlecruiser 7 T2 Cruiser 6 In a tournament situation the average T2 cruiser will severely outclass the abilities, durability and damage output of a T1 BC and yet the T1 BC is 7 points to a T2 cruisers 6. For another pointlessly easy example, durring last tournament the average interdictor lasted until the other team achieved a lock and the T2 frigate quite often survived the whole fight. So we have one ship which will invariably be dead within seconds of the start and one which fills a critical roll and has good survivability so the logic says the useful ship is the more expensive in terms of points however the useful ship is half the points cost of the interdictor! Good idea, stinking implementation with all of 10 seconds of thought...if that.
Trevedian Amarr KR0M The Red Skull	Posted - 2006.09.25 17:30:00 - [3] Edited by: Trevedian on 25/09/2006 17:37:14 Sounds great, just make the Arena 50km radius otherwise the 30km start range will give people even more time to backpedal than the last tourney... Last time the Arena was 200km in diameter... Force people to fight not snipe and backpedal... Sex0r > you're bounty turns me on.. you seem like the kind of amarrian to dominate me
Sivona Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.09.25 17:54:00 - [4] OK lets break this down futher Originally by: LeMonde Each ship can fit only one Stasis Webifier. Spot the kneejerk reaction everyone! The reason for this is obviously to attempt to avoid one team fielding a huginn/rapier and trying to keep a specifically close range fitted team from closing. So whats the problem exactly here? Quite simply its because this is a blatent attempt to stop a team fitting a counter to someone using close range setups. Theres nothing wrong with fitting a counter imo, if a team is so inflexible it relies on one setup that can be countered that should be their problem not their oppositions, i know the webs made the final not exactly exciting but when you stick two teams with entirely defensive setups to fight each other its not exactly going to be exciting is it, if you want to change the rules to make it more exciting ban remote repping not webs. This is just going to encourage a lot more remote repping and a lot less variety in tactics, when the emphasis should be on the close range teams working out solutions (quite easy) Originally by: LeMonde Each ship can fit only one Target Painter. I really dont understand this, well i do but its utterly disappointing. The only real impact this will have is on torp using ravens to prevent them from hitting for decent damage on smaller targets, but to fit more than one you start to seriously affect the balance of those ships, i think this should be a decision for a team to make not you. If you want to go for higher damage at the expense of your tank you should be allowed to, its called tactics. Originally by: LeMonde Faction implants are staying in. Crystal implats will most likely be looked at and balanced. Its been shown they horrifically imbalance the tournaments anyway. However the real imbalance it creates are between those who can afford decent implants and those who cant. MC were fielding about 10 billion in implants last tournament, it gives a huge advantage and isn't anything to do with skill, tactics or creativity. The tournament should be about planning, creative ideas, teamwork and good tactics. These rules force teams into pretty much homogenous tactics, when the idea of allowing a choice of ships was to allow flexible tactics, with these changes its just back to being a sp/wallet epeen contest.
Kehmor Caldari PAK	Posted - 2006.09.25 18:03:00 - [5] Originally by: Sivona stuff about tactics etc. /signed
Tigertex Arcane Technologies The Five	Posted - 2006.09.25 18:17:00 - [6] T2 ammo allowed this time?
Louisa Torres Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.09.25 18:27:00 - [7] Have to agree with Sivona, if you want more bang you should ban remote repping. Heck, even if you just restrict remote repping MODULES (not drones, which can be killed) to Logistics ships you'd get the result you want. I forsee many people copying kozaks setup, how exciting.
Alasse Cuthalion TAOSP Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.09.25 18:32:00 - [8] WTS: Bhaalgorn bpc's!
Tigertex Arcane Technologies The Five	Posted - 2006.09.25 18:37:00 - [9] is EW in this time
Admiral Hikaru	Posted - 2006.09.25 19:14:00 - [10] Edited by: Admiral Hikaru on 25/09/2006 19:15:29

Shivaja Caldari CHON R i s e	Posted - 2006.09.25 19:16:00 - [11] Originally by: Sivona Edited by: Sivona on 25/09/2006 17:03:46 While the concept of points is good to encourage mixed team and not limit those with no access to T2/faction ships, the implementation is frankly shocking. For a start and rememeber these are tournament conditions not standard TQ. T1 Battlecruiser 7 T2 Cruiser 6 In a tournament situation the average T2 cruiser will severely outclass the abilities, durability and damage output of a T1 BC and yet the T1 BC is 7 points to a T2 cruisers 6. For another pointlessly easy example, durring last tournament the average interdictor lasted until the other team achieved a lock and the T2 frigate quite often survived the whole fight. So we have one ship which will invariably be dead within seconds of the start and one which fills a critical roll and has good survivability so the logic says the useful ship is the more expensive in terms of points however the useful ship is half the points cost of the interdictor! Good idea, stinking implementation with all of 10 seconds of thought...if that. Agreed here on 100% based on experience from the last tournament the points shall more represent actual strenght of the ships. Shivaja Queen of Outer Ring CHON ceo NORAD Military Commander NORAD Kill Board
Ithildin Gallente The Corporation	Posted - 2006.09.25 22:16:00 - [12] Originally by: Tigertex is EW in this time Originally by: Tigertex T2 ammo allowed this time? No and no. Thank the gods. We, and the creators of the tourny I'm sure, do not want fights where the winner is the one who succeded in ECMing the other side first. Also, T2 ammo has been proven to be one of the... less wise choices... The first tournament was a show in how rediculous precision missiles were, and since this tournament seem to be focused more on smaller ships (21 points leave room for one battleship and a few frigs) - Three years old
Hakera Anari Higard	Posted - 2006.09.25 22:18:00 - [13] hmm i think i much prefer a system similar to old minus the ability to use pirate sets. with your points based system for some reason 5 af's or 4 af's and 1 bs seem like a cool choice especially at such a short range where nos will be dominant. I see what your trying to do to make battles more interesting and a general 'in the mixer' approach however and agree with sivona that the TP limitation is a bit ott. However im not sure on webs as the curse/bhaalgorn/rapier combo ships will be amongst the better able to engage their nos from the get go and drain a target in seconds. I would prefer a starting distance that once again is outside the nos distance so back to 50k.
Ithildin Gallente The Corporation	Posted - 2006.09.25 22:25:00 - [14] Originally by: LeMonde Several things regarding the rules and format of the third alliance tournament have now been decided. <..> Additionally, we are changing to a points-based system, where teams have 21 points to select a team setup. Faction Battleship 12 Tier 3 Battleship 11 Tier 2 Battleship 10 Tier 1 Battleship 9 T2 Battlecruiser 8 T1 Battlecruiser 7 T2 Cruiser 6 T1 Cruiser 5 T2 Destroyer 4 T1 Destroyer 3 T2 Frigate 2 T1 Frigate 1 Restrictions: No more than one battleship. No more than one battlecruiser. No more than one of each cruser type (no team can have two HAC's. Combat recon and force recon count as the same type.). A maximum of five pilots per team. These issues are still open for discussion. If you feel you have valuable input, don't hesitate to post. With 21 points you will hardly see the kind of fights we had last tournament. Cruiser warfare, which is what these 21 points boils it down to, is a rather quick affair. They generally do not have as high tank as their damage. I also think that separating the tiers of battleships so much is unwise. For example, it is very doubtful whether an Apocalypse is as good as an Armageddon, and the Megathron versus Dominix is also rather situational. Judging tier 3s I will not do until tux releases more info, but hopefully it'll stick with the current situation (options rather than power separating tiers). Additionally, taking into account what others commented on for example battlecruiser versus tech 2 cruiser, perhaps the T2 version should be "priced" the same as the next size ship T1? An example list (points are arbitrary and only for illustration): Faction Battleship 6 Std Battleship 5 T2 Battlecruiser 5 T1 Battlecruiser 4 T2 Cruiser 4 T1 Cruiser 3 T2 Destroyer 3 (not that these are terribly powerful...) T1 Destroyer 2 T2 Frigate 2 T1 Frigate 1 - Three years old
Tyrrax Thorrk Amarr Umbra Congregatio Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.09.26 00:02:00 - [15] Edited by: Tyrrax Thorrk on 26/09/2006 00:05:13 Originally by: Sivona Edited by: Sivona on 25/09/2006 17:03:46 While the concept of points is good to encourage mixed team and not limit those with no access to T2/faction ships, the implementation is frankly shocking. ... Good idea, stinking implementation with all of 10 seconds of thought...if that. Couldn't agree more Only reason I'm opposed to the points system is the horrible implementation LeMonde wants to go with I don't like the restriction on number of target painters fitted per ship, the webifier one doesn't bother me, one 40 km webifier is difficult enough to deal with in general short range should be encouraged since it makes for sexier and shorter fights. as to implants and ISK, cry me a river all you justins out there as raynor coined at the last tournament, it's an alliance tournament, not the hobo bumfights championships.. Since we're stuck with the points system, please put some more thought into it and don't keep this restrictive icky badly designed one, 21 points is too few. Also how many people on each team ? Can one field 1 BS 6 frigates ? Implementation of points system is in severe need of work. http://eve.klaki.net/
jamesw Omniscient Order	Posted - 2006.09.26 04:13:00 - [16] Firstly, you will probably all shoot me for saying this, but here goes: With the proposed restrictions on Target Painters and Webs, its quite obvious that the bonuses afforded to some ships have the potential to make them overpowered (ie huginn/rapier + raven combo = no viable close range combat). Now in NORMAL pvp, there is a great counter to that combo - its called a Lachesis, and sometimes goes by the name of Rook. Disallowing or restricting modules in this way is essentially nerfing the combat and force recon classes right out of the tournament Rook, falcon, lachesis, arazu are all but useless in the current format. This restriction will see the Huginn and Rapier possibly head that way too. Now, these are really classy ships, and should be used to their full potential. Now, I'm all for close range combat... and the way I see it, there is one change that would make it work well, and allow for truly juicy, well balanced close range fights with no module restrictions. Simply - Allow ECM! It provides the perfect counter to many of these "problem tactics", and is itself counterable through the use of ECCM modules, warfare link modules, and fof/drones. I have used both ECM and ECCM extensively in PVP ops in recent times, and I personally find that when both are used, it seems nicely balanced (OMG SHOCK HORROR). ECM vs vanilla ships with no ECCM is a bit overpowered, but whack on a couple of midslot ECCM modules, and even dedicated jamming ships have trouble with you. So back to the tournament, What would allowing ECM achieve?? It would make the tournament a lot more like realistic PVP, firstly. Secondly, recon role-based ships can be used to full potential. All of them. Yes! This may well result in a total Jamming, Dampening, Target Painting, Webbing and Tracking disrupting fest, but that is what small gang PVP is in this game. Personally I love it! If you know how to set up a ship / team well, there is nothing that cant be countered. A 30km start range is great, as all ships are in close and a 60km jam/dampen fest is not going to happen. - ECM can be countered with ECCM. With the right gang support ships ECCM is VERY NICE! - Dampening is less effective with multiple targets. In a 30km fight with unpredictable numbers, using it is a risky move. - Tracking disruption is countered by drones, jamming, missile based ships - Target painting increases incoming damage, but doesnt reduce your effectiveness. Kill this guy first! - Webbing hurts fast ships, but is useless against slow & or long range ships. Every ewar type has its own advantages and disadvantages. I think they should be allowed. -- NEW Vid: Domi For the Win!
MOOstradamus	Posted - 2006.09.26 04:31:00 - [17] /me thinks that 'Each ship can only fit one ECM Jammer.' was missed out from the list of rules MOOCIFER Emerald/Alpha Oldtimer
Ithildin Gallente The Corporation	Posted - 2006.09.26 06:44:00 - [18] Durrr... ECM is boring bad and broken. The other EWar could work since they sort of require three or four modules (less is not enough and more is redundant) to actually work. With ECM you just end up with a lot of ships unable to do anything - not the foundation for fun and entertaining combat. As for this odd notion that ECCM "works", it doesn't. It helps, but it doesn't work. As throughly detailed in ships and modules forum whenever someone tries to pull that arguement. One sacrificed module that does nothing except maybe help you possibly eventually if and only if the enemy does fit jammers and try to jam you, but the risk of being jammed is still very very high. - Three years old
Amarr Citizen 13513	Posted - 2006.09.26 09:04:00 - [19] Needs "no armor/shield maint bots"
Coasterbrian Celestial Horizon Corp. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.09.26 09:06:00 - [20] You want to limit something? Limit nos. When you force close range, what's gonna happen is that the team that can suck the most cap/sec will win. No nos = weaker tanks that don't last as long (cap boosters are still finite) = shorter fights where people may see more benefit to a high damage setup than a maxed out tank. Oh, and it needs to be at least 23 points, with closer to 27 being preferable. 21 means a tier 1 BS, a tech I BC, and a tech I cruiser. Sorry, but those are gonna make for some rather boring fights. Overall, I still prefer the previous method of limiting ships. ---------- I say what I mean, but I don't always mean what I say.

Zajo The Corporation	Posted - 2006.09.26 09:38:00 - [21] Originally by: Sivona OK lets break this down futher Faction implants are staying in. Crystal implats will most likely be looked at and balanced. Its been shown they horrifically imbalance the tournaments anyway. However the real imbalance it creates are between those who can afford decent implants and those who cant. MC were fielding about 10 billion in implants last tournament, it gives a huge advantage and isn't anything to do with skill, tactics or creativity. The tournament should be about planning, creative ideas, teamwork and good tactics. These rules force teams into pretty much homogenous tactics, when the idea of allowing a choice of ships was to allow flexible tactics, with these changes its just back to being a sp/wallet epeen contest. /signed ----------------------------------------------- "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"
jamesw Omniscient Order	Posted - 2006.09.26 10:08:00 - [22] Originally by: Ithildin Durrr... ECM is boring bad and broken. The other EWar could work since they sort of require three or four modules (less is not enough and more is redundant) to actually work. With ECM you just end up with a lot of ships unable to do anything - not the foundation for fun and entertaining combat. As for this odd notion that ECCM "works", it doesn't. It helps, but it doesn't work. As throughly detailed in ships and modules forum whenever someone tries to pull that arguement. One sacrificed module that does nothing except maybe help you possibly eventually if and only if the enemy does fit jammers and try to jam you, but the risk of being jammed is still very very high. ECCM Works and works well. I was discussing this fact on IRC with a few people earlier today, and if you look at it at the level of a single module/midslot - yes ECM is "better". However when it is factored in to an overall ship setup is a completely different affair. That discussion is for another place, however. The long and short of it is that if you bother to learn to use the counters to ECM the system works quite fairly. Don't take the word of the ships and modules forum - try it for yourself. I assure you it works well for me (and the gangs I fly in). As to the effectiveness of ECCM and whether the enemy may possibly try and potentially jam you. "Don't fight blind" is just as true for a tournament as it is for regular PVP. When you know what your enemy is fielding it becomes pretty damn easy to counter them. -- NEW Vid: Domi For the Win!
Altai Saker Omniscient Order	Posted - 2006.09.26 10:57:00 - [23] ECM should be allowed because thats what pvp is today in eve a mix of tanks ganks and ecm... if you don't want to get jammed you either fit to jam your opponent or fit eccm... What we need in these tourneys is VARIATION I mean, I really want to see another boring remote rep fest... Oh wait no I don't and it's in no way representative of actual eve pvp. Going with an ecm team will be a HUGE RISK and if your opponent is antiecm and gank, guess what your uber rook eos raven team just go WTFPWND

LeMonde	Posted - 2006.09.26 13:22:00 - [24] As stated in the post, these issues are still up for discussion. Currently, based on your input, we're looking at making the following revisions to the points system: Faction Battleship 12 Tier 3 Battleship 11 Tier 2 Battleship 10 Tier 1 Battleship 9 T2 Battlecruiser 8 T2 Cruiser 7 T1 Battlecruiser 6 T1 Cruiser 5 T2 Frigate 4 T2 Destroyer 3 T1 Destroyer 2 T1 Frigate 1 No more than one battleship No more than one of each cruiser type (no team can have two HAC's . Combat recon and force recon count as the same type.) A maximum of five pilots per team. On the issue of ECM, I actually think it's a pretty good idea allowing one or more ECM module per ship. Discuss. An even bigger change would be to allow corporations to participate, and simply having a corporation tournament. Going to need some input on that one aswell

jamesw Omniscient Order	Posted - 2006.09.26 13:59:00 - [25] Originally by: LeMonde On the issue of ECM, I actually think it's a pretty good idea allowing one or more ECM module per ship. Discuss. Well, i think it would add variety to the tournament. The notion that you can run an insane "circle" tank using remote reps on all ships is directly countered through ECM. Also, ships like the Curse with its insane NOS range (which you now start INSIDE) can be countered this way. ECM however reduces your own tanking effectiveness, is not guaranteed to work and can also be countered. Then you have the other "forgotten" recons - rook, lachesis etc. They now have a potential use in the tourney! With the ECCM boost, and information warfare links + spec, ECM is a lot weaker than it used to be. People worry about dull fights where luck in the first jam is what decides it. This is what will happen when 2 teams rely on ECM entirely. In reality, these teams would get knocked out quite quickly by teams that balance setups ie. ECCM as well as ECM, alternate damage methods and the like. In short. It will allow for more variety. Long drawn out remote repping fests will hopefully be a thing of the past, with some spice in the tournament pie. I like that pie. -- NEW Vid: Domi For the Win!
Raem Civrie Umbra Congregatio Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.09.26 14:21:00 - [26] While the point gradient on battleships is nice, the gradient between t2 variants of ships is a little whack. In fact, it should probably look a little like this (point numbers are still whack, but it's a little better) Faction Battleship 12 Tier 3 Battleship 11 Tier 2 Battleship 10 Tier 1 Battleship 9 T2 Battlecruiser 8 T2 Cruiser 7 T1 Battlecruiser 6 T2 Frigate 5 T1 Cruiser 4 T2 Destroyer 3 T1 Destroyer 2 T1 Frigate 1 ---- All you do is bark, you never meow.
DJ Xod Minmatar Eve Radio Corporation	Posted - 2006.09.26 15:07:00 - [27] Originally by: Raem Civrie Faction Battleship 12 Tier 3 Battleship 11 Tier 2 Battleship 10 Tier 1 Battleship 9 T2 Battlecruiser 8 T2 Cruiser 7 T1 Battlecruiser 6 T2 Frigate 5 T1 Cruiser 4 T2 Destroyer 3 T1 Destroyer 2 T1 Frigate 1 Nice - I like this point scheme. http://www.eve-radio.com
Raem Civrie Umbra Congregatio Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.09.26 15:16:00 - [28] Originally by: DJ Xod Originally by: Raem Civrie Faction Battleship 12 Tier 3 Battleship 11 Tier 2 Battleship 10 Tier 1 Battleship 9 T2 Battlecruiser 8 T2 Cruiser 7 T1 Battlecruiser 6 T2 Frigate 5 T1 Cruiser 4 T2 Destroyer 3 T1 Destroyer 2 T1 Frigate 1 Nice - I like this point scheme. Thanks. Point total should also be somewhat closer to 31, allowing for tier 3 bship, Command, HAC and assault frigate. Hell, even then you're only fielding 4 ships out of maximum 5. 21 is way too low. ---- All you do is bark, you never meow.
Riley Craven Caldari Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.09.26 15:24:00 - [29] Wow, Thankfully I will never be able to be one of these tournies. I find all these rules make this overly complicated. I mean its not like there are any rules in PVP in this game so why should there be here? I mean ECM maybe overpowered, but if it is, why not look into and balance instead of making players not use it all in these situations?
Manic Mole Keepers of the Holy Bagel The SUdden Death Squad	Posted - 2006.09.26 16:53:00 - [30] of the team restrictions I think the limit on 5 people sucks, if a side wants to feild 21 t1 frigs they should, heck it might even be more entertaining with ships exploding all over the place. if anything I say offends, so what?



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: 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.