EVE Search - Third Alliance Tournament

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)
Darpz Rampage Eternal	Posted - 2006.09.26 18:23:00 - [31] Originally by: LeMonde 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 2 BCs?
Trevedian Amarr KR0M The Red Skull	Posted - 2006.09.26 18:25:00 - [32] Edited by: Trevedian on 26/09/2006 18:29:42 Give that we are using such small numbers for ships complicates things (Use 100pts and assign more realistic numbers to ships, or dabbling in fractions, 10.5 etc.) T2 Command Ships = 1.5 T2 Cruisers And should be more than 1 point higher than a T2 Cruiser... Perhaps something like this is more realistic... Faction Battleship 12 Tier 3 Battleship 11 Tier 2 Battleship 10 Tier 1 Battleship 9 T2 Battlecruiser 8 T2 Cruiser 6 T1 Battlecruiser 5 T1 Cruiser 4 T2 Frigate 4 T2 Destroyer 4 T1 Destroyer 1 T1 Frigate 1 Furthermore, can we get an answer in regards to the size of the Arena this time? If you make it 200km in diameter like last time, there is no way to allow one team to catch the other unless it has a Hugin... And last time Hugins were used as defensive ships, to keep the opponent at range not to get closer (like Digi thinks)... BOB, IAC, etc used Hugins so the didn't need to mix it up close and could missle spam/snipe. Only a few teams, ASCN,*****, Smash, etc. tried to get close to their opponent... ASCN would have finished our team (we just lost our frig and interdictor to them) but we kept them at range using a Hugin and kept their damage low (cuz they were at 40km) and we had plenty of room to travel around and backwards. So 200km diameter Arena is way too big if you actually wanna see fights finish, Red Skull could have finshed several of our fights much quicker but the enemy BS was as fast as our BS and could retreat from the fight flying backwards and wait for time to expire, a closer starting range only gives people more room to backpedal, if you don't have a Hugin you won't be able to run down your opponent. SO COMMENT ON THE SIZE OF THE ARENA PLZ! I vote no on limited ECM, would only protract fights longer. Sex0r > you're bounty turns me on.. you seem like the kind of amarrian to dominate me
TWD TAOSP Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.09.27 00:00:00 - [33] ECM... Its not a lottery where the person that has the most luck wins. Dampeners... Right, the side that gets the locks first, activate the damps and uses mwd to stay out of lock range wins. The rules of the second tournament were fine. The new rule for when there is a draw sounds nice, but for the rest I don't see anything wrong. There was not one setup that could beat every other setup.
Tyrrax Thorrk Amarr Umbra Congregatio Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.09.27 01:53:00 - [34] With how many points LeMonde ? If still 21 that's crap, as Raem said 31 would be a good number, along with only being allowed to field one (BS/CS/recon/logistic), should be allowed to field as many hacs/t1 bc as you want. And I think there shouldn't be any limit to number of painters fitted, more damage is a good thing. Also should be able to field a team of 7, maximum of 5 makes points system kinda pointless. http://eve.klaki.net/
Discodude Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.09.27 03:39:00 - [35] hmm. I like the points system, more dynamic. but don't limit the number of players avalable to a team to much. Maybe 10 to a team is max or somehting...that way alliances like goon could actually see if a rather large team with lost of smaller ships can match a power orientated team.
Darpz Rampage Eternal	Posted - 2006.09.27 05:32:00 - [36] Putting so many point difference between Faction BS and Tier 1 would mean that all you will see is Tier 1 since if your fielding a BS its very hard to make a team work with a Faction BS and any other ships to help support 21 Points BS 9 Faction BS Tier 3 8 Tier1/Tier2 7 T2 BC 6 T2 Cruiser/ T1 BC 5 T1 Cruiser 3 T2 Frig/Dessie 2 Dessie 1 Frig 1 BS 1 BC 1 Recon Multiple of other classes is fine ( I can't think of a reason why 2-3 hacs would be over powerd ) would allow for alot more flexablity I can think of alot of layouts that would be very effective in this arrange ment and non I think have a major advantage over another 7 Man Max (max you can have on your team including alts so if you field this big of a team you better be damn sure every pilot can make every fight) NO ECM. you put in ECM you'll have 5 AFs with ECM modules fitted winning the tourney I do agree with the 1 Stasis Web Rule it will stop the line em up and shootem we got in the last torny don't know if I like the new start range seems to advantage close range too much. Don't think Corps in the tourney will work. Since most alliances have 2-3 corps that could field a team and in this layout a cheap frigate based team (in my format or the original) could stand a chance to win a few rounds so you would have 100s of teams for this thing, which would take an eternity to do and tbh alot of us have a Real Life and the last tourney was about the max for the amount of matches you can get most people to make time for in something like this. So what you guys think?
Darpz Rampage Eternal	Posted - 2006.09.27 05:44:00 - [37] oh and on prizes please not some stupid monument if a team is going to put billions of isk into a 1/50 or worse chance to win a tourney like this there needs to be some tangeble benifit. Maybe one off ships such as the amarr tourny. Ideas that won't tip allaince balance to much but are significant enough to make it worth it Creat a Faction BS named after the Alliance that won and they would receave a 10 run BPC (only BPC that will ever exsist for that ship) the runner ups could receave Faction Battlecruisrs or Cruisers named in the same fashion.
Sorja E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.09.28 01:17:00 - [38] No ECM and starting range 30km doesn't sound very Caldari friendly, their best ships being based on range and ECM. Since CCP designed a PvP game, we all should play along their rules, IMHO. ____________________ Darko1107 > does anything in ascn space have tech II fittings? Quillan Rage > Iron ships
grandmaat22	Posted - 2006.09.28 03:38:00 - [39] Originally by: Sorja No ECM and starting range 30km doesn't sound very Caldari friendly, their best ships being based on range and ECM. Since CCP designed a PvP game, we all should play along their rules, IMHO. This is so true, look how the previous PVP Alliance Tournaments and their lack of ECM made no one want to use Caldari ships... No one wanted to use Caldari ships last time, did they? Oh wait they were the most heavily used race, oh well guess ur argument is bad... Maybe another race might actually get used more now...
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.09.28 04:49:00 - [40] Originally by: grandmaat22 No one wanted to use Caldari ships last time, did they? Oh wait they were the most heavily used race, oh well guess ur argument is bad... Maybe another race might actually get used more now... Use of Caldari had nothing to do with being able to use pirate implants, I assue you. This setup seems pretty odd LeMonde, and well, I can't see what te point of it (or the others) is? What bearing does this have on Kali, and factional warfare? Generic content is fine and all, but this setup leaves alot to be desired: First, why are you limiting pilots? EVE claims that bigger isn't better, but you're going to force that on people with your limits. If I want to lead a 21-man frig gang into this tournament, then why shouldn't I be allowed to? Will the boundries be clearly shown? Is it possible for you guys to 'wall' the area somewhat? Or even simply put up a 'ring'? Why bother having an entry fee if you get it back for taking part completely? The only way a team isn't going to fully take part is if something happens and one of their pilots is unable to log, which is unlikely. Seems like extra work to me. What are the prizes? Giving massive ships that can have quite an impact when used properly, is pretty poor. Simply winning pre-set fights, and being awarded half a dozen capships is abit silly, and it'd make sense to give out some 'real' trophies anyways. Comeon, I'm sure you guys got quite a few 'special' ships you could part with. Even giving out another couple magnates would be a better prize than capital ships. not to mention, should a high-sec based group ever win such prizes, how will they get them? Would they have to go build a POS for the MS to be put at, or would you give them the ships in highsec (or in a station period in the case of said mothership)? Why the tackling nerf for this fight? It looks like a direct response to the BoB vs ASCN fight from the last tourny. I still don't get why you bother to limit mods to exclude Faction and Officer, when you don't do the same for implants, which make a HUGE difference, and will be at zero risk in this tournament. T2 ammo, yow or nay? Oh, and when are signups? Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
Marsha11 Penetrate	Posted - 2006.09.28 12:20:00 - [41] Originally by: Manic Mole 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. Your not a goonfleet alt by any chance are you? End
Valrandir Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.09.28 13:04:00 - [42] Originally by: Marsha11 Originally by: Manic Mole 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. Your not a goonfleet alt by any chance are you? End It's much easier to move 5 pilots to the arena, then to move 21 pilots. Because - My setup was not ready! - I forgot my ammo can you move be back? - OMG I was in a session change - etc -------------------------------- This has surpassed the Yarrdware specification and has been dubbed Uberware.
jamesw Omniscient Order	Posted - 2006.09.28 13:04:00 - [43] Query regarding team changes - last tournament there were no changes allowed to pilots in your team. I nominate 5 pilots for my team, with the following tournament strategies in mind: Strategy 1 has Pilot 1: BS, Pilot 2: BC, Pilot 3: Frigate. Strategy 2 has: Pilot 2 BS, Pilot 4: HAC, Pilot 5: Recon Is there any rule against switching strategies, and which pilots actively fight, so long as the pilots are among the original 5 nominated? -- NEW Vid: Domi For the Win!
Vito Parabellum Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.09.28 15:42:00 - [44] Edited by: Vito Parabellum on 28/09/2006 15:43:23 I agree with most of what Sivona said. A pvp tourny should not be about who has the biggest wallet. ECM is a nono, each activation is a dice roll that has an improportionate impact on the battle, ECCM just shifts the odds. Luck and wealth are factors that should be minimized so that the victor can truly say he is the best.
Terrorv1z Caldari InterGalactic Corp. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.09.28 16:18:00 - [45] Edited by: Terrorv1z on 28/09/2006 16:18:55 Personally I think CCP should decide what they are & are not gonna allow. Either all forms of EW are in or they aren't. Half-assed measures like no ECM remove a lot of Caldari (& other races - I know Caldari best ) ships (both Recon, BB & Scorp) or limiting the number of webbers on a ship is pointless. EW is fully counterable very easily by a number of methods. CCP should make it either full damage/tank setups or "anything goes" and allow all EW types. I'd suggest the latter if you really wanna see teams have varied setups that test their PvP abilities. Otherwise it just comes down to who can afford the best implants, mods & ships which is boring to watch. Also increase the number of ships per team - the points system seems like a good way to go. 10 v 10 would be more interesting to watch. Oh - and don't let either side see each other until the match starts - make them warp in or something.
Tyrrax Thorrk Amarr Umbra Congregatio Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.09.28 17:55:00 - [46] Originally by: Terrorv1z [Otherwise it just comes down to who can afford the best implants, mods & ships which is boring to watch. So so ignorant, did you miss the other two tournaments entirely ? http://eve.klaki.net/
Terrorv1z Caldari InterGalactic Corp. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.09.28 19:56:00 - [47] Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk Originally by: Terrorv1z [Otherwise it just comes down to who can afford the best implants, mods & ships which is boring to watch. So so ignorant, did you miss the other two tournaments entirely ? Nope - considering I came up with some ideas having watched them guess you'd be the ignorant 1 You want to see good PvP skill give people the right to choose. Don't think restricting certain mods (EW & webbers) "opens" up PvP. Would make it more entertaining watching how different teams react to the varied aspects of Eve. The tournaments are great - just don't see why CCP restrict them.
Morning Maniac Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2006.09.28 19:56:00 - [48] With the same number of points per team it would be fun to allow more then 5 pilots on the field. Obviously I'm talking for my own corp here MM http://eve.xonectic.com/forum/(out of game) EVE University commercial
Shintoko Akahoshi Omerta Syndicate	Posted - 2006.09.28 21:40:00 - [49] Personally, I think allowing implants is the biggest spoiler of the tourney. Think about it: You can field the ships you want, with whatever mods you want, but they are at risk of being destroyed. It makes for an interesting balance of risk versus reward. Implants, on the other hand, are basically sacred, since there is the no-podding rule. What this means, then, is that the richest players/alliances are going to automatically come into the tournament with an inherent advantage over the poorer ones. Now, this might be what you intend, but it does reduce the excitement a bit. I can understand the allowance of implants, since you don't want to discourage players with pricey implants from entering, especially in the first tournament. We have jump clones now, though, which makes it possible to disallow implants in general. An interesting alternative, of course, would be to allow podding... The Red Mom of WarÖ
jamesw Omniscient Order	Posted - 2006.09.29 01:49:00 - [50] Edited by: jamesw on 29/09/2006 01:49:55 Originally by: Shintoko Akahoshi allow podding... I support this. If you can't afford to risk them, you can't afford to use them. Edit: by "them" I mean Pirate Implants... -- NEW Vid: Domi For the Win!
Altai Saker Omniscient Order	Posted - 2006.09.29 17:46:00 - [51] Originally by: jamesw Edited by: jamesw on 29/09/2006 01:49:55 Originally by: Shintoko Akahoshi allow podding... I support this. If you can't afford to risk them, you can't afford to use them. Edit: by "them" I mean Pirate Implants... Have to agree
Vito Parabellum Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.09.29 22:49:00 - [52] Only danger for a pod in a tournament would be a smartbomb, because no sane team would ever bring warpscramblers or bubbles for the sole purpose of killing pods. If the risk of podding is going to be a real factor, make it so that no pod is allowed to warp out and each match ends with the entire destruction of one team (or disqualification) :p
maGz The Priory	Posted - 2006.09.29 23:01:00 - [53] Originally by: LeMonde Each ship can fit only one Stasis Webifier. Each ship can fit only one Target Painter. As previously mentioned, it's up to each team to choose how they fight their matches. By disallowing multiple webs you effectively kill proper long-range tactics hence making the tournament more one-sided and in the end fairly predictable and boring. Same thing goes for the target painter limitation; you somewhat destroy the opportunity for a full gank setup ie. light a target up as a small moon and hope to gank the opponent before you lose too much. Originally by: LeMonde Faction implants are staying in. Crystal implats will most likely be looked at and balanced. Wow you almost admit that there's a problem with the crystal implants in these tournaments. However I can't describe how sad I am that you just wont change your mind about T2/faction implants. What's the point of doing these tournaments when you over and over again favor the people who can afford to slap 3-4 billion implants in their head? And with a entry-fee you're really making sure that the little guy wont participate. What's the point? Pay 1 billion isk, lose a bunch of ships to big name alliances who paid 15 billion isk for T2/faction implants for all their pilots and get.... oh yeah your 1 billion isk back. Very nice setup All in all I only see changes that make an already poorly planned/executed tournament even worse. But as long as you get viewers on EvE-TV I guess you're happy ____________ The Priory Killboard
Shintoko Akahoshi Omerta Syndicate	Posted - 2006.09.30 01:29:00 - [54] Originally by: Vito Parabellum Only danger for a pod in a tournament would be a smartbomb, because no sane team would ever bring warpscramblers or bubbles for the sole purpose of killing pods. If the risk of podding is going to be a real factor, make it so that no pod is allowed to warp out and each match ends with the entire destruction of one team (or disqualification) :p There you go. The Red Mom of WarÖ
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.09.30 04:43:00 - [55] Originally by: Vito Parabellum Luck and wealth are factors that should be minimized so that the victor can truly say he is the best. Good luck getting the 'best' to not use implants. Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.09.30 04:45:00 - [56] Edited by: Malthros Zenobia on 30/09/2006 04:52:05 Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk Originally by: Terrorv1z [Otherwise it just comes down to who can afford the best implants, mods & ships which is boring to watch. So so ignorant, did you miss the other two tournaments entirely ? Did you miss the little detail that the light missile crow for Bob had snake implants, and wouldn't have been catchable for the rocket crow? The way you guys limit some things but not others is extremely cheesy Lemonde. Allow ewar, who cares if everyone's using sensor damps and ECM? You think people don't use them in the game? An artifical setup like this isn't a true test of 'skill' in any way. You could have a team that uses dampeners in a way that they simply destroy all comers, or fit ECCM and annhilate the ECM teams. Is that wrong? I don't think so. However, by saying 'oh, you can use THESE overpowered mods, but those overkill implants are ok', which is what these current rules say, you're not holding a tounament of skill, because if you setup two teams of equal skill, and one side is using implants and the other side isn't. That's a HUGE advantage. Using snake implants would be ulike upgrading their tacklers from T2 to faction/deadspace AB/MWD. Slaves are like a free plate with no maluses. Crystal, maybe you guys will turn them into shield HP instead of an extra uber shield boost amp, but the fact remains. You're not actually 'limiting' faction/overkill mods. I'd love to see a breakdown of which members of the top 4 teams from the last two tournies, had faction implants, and just how many. Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
Raem Civrie Umbra Congregatio Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.09.30 12:29:00 - [57] Edited by: Raem Civrie on 30/09/2006 12:31:43 The rocket crow also had implants. A heap of them. They lost because they brought a ROCKET CROW (apparently they were expecting a taranis). Whoops. They lost to fitting in the possibly most *** tiebreaker setup ever (should never have been a 1v1 tiebreaker, much rather 3v3 in t1 frigates, alß Amarr Succession). Also, last time I suggested that when a team loses a match that also loses them the tournament (i.e. not applicable in brackets, some of the last matches would be dependant on other matches, not fair at all), their opponents would get to pod them, execution-style. Having to replace mid-tournament is silly, but if losing the tourney also means losing the implants, then that still allows you to use them entwined with certain strategies, while still giving the risk of losing everything. ---- All you do is bark, you never meow.
News Minmatar Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2006.09.30 13:51:00 - [58] Are these rules for a pvp tournament or for a CCG tournament? The rules of the last two tournaments seemed to me to be mostly in effect to stop completely overpowered setups (no t2 ammo, EW, etc.), but still left enough room for teams to come up with different tactics. Moreover, they made sure you were never sure what the opponent was going to do. These rules are just going to produce a lot of similar teams, restricting the number of valid tactics. How about putting some more of the sandbox philosphy into the rules?
Mextor Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2006.09.30 13:54:00 - [59] ok i have read the rules u r looking to put in and i think, how about this, ship types and fittings the same as last time, any ship as long as u have 1 frig, 1 destoryer, 1 cruiser, 1 bc and 1 bs faction or T2 its up to u, mods no faction. implants, no faction implants what so ever, only t1 hardwiring and attribute implants only. type of fittings what the hell u want as long as it not faction, but limit EW mods to one possibley 2 per ship. this will mean the smaller alliances will have more of a chance to do better, and the rich alliances will not just go out and buy crystal implants like most of us did and will make it more like real PVP where ppl does use ECM and the like. or if ur going to put a point limit on it give us 27 points, this will let us use one of each type at t1 and 2 spare points so u could us and faction bs and a t2 ship or 2 smaller t2 ships(rec, hac, bs, af, inty or interdictor's. as for starting at 30km i think this is good means the huginn and rapier are not so jesus like against short range ships, and can be countered by the curse or EW. Full Stats
Ghost Reaper Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.09.30 18:43:00 - [60] if ur inlcuding tier 3 bs, what about tier 2 bc's? gr

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.