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?

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

Ithildin Gallente The Corporation	Posted - 2006.09.30 22:31:00 - [61] Originally by: Ghost Reaper if ur inlcuding tier 3 bs, what about tier 2 bc's? gr I believe that they go as any other BC. - Three years old
Gaiden R Gallente UK Corp Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.10.01 10:18:00 - [62] I think if your allowed to use implants we should be able to pod you aswell. Plus give me a ship and point me in the way of the fight. Happy Days
Derran Minmatar Khumatari Holdings Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2006.10.01 23:40:00 - [63] Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk 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. So basically, you don't want frigates in the tournament? You have that many points and you might as well not even allow them at all. What you proposing sounds no different than the last tournament, maybe even worse. There would be even less of a turnout this time than the last tournament. For those who don't like it, there is a simple solution. Don't sign up for it. The way it looks right now, I can see alot more people signing up for this one than the last one and very likely less no shows. While not a fan of a point allocation system myself, I can see some positive things. For starters, the opposing team's ship types will be less predictable. It didn't take a genius to know that Navy Ravens would be used and the first 2 ships lost were the two weakest. I can't tell you how boring the matches were to watch in the last tournament except for 2 of them. The other downside were matches had to be laid out to make it long enough due to the low turnout, which just made it feel like it dragged on and on. The amount of points garantees that not every ship will be a T2 ship. Has a decision been reached on the gear? T2 only or faction allowed? What about prizes? The whole caldari mothership and carriers is getting a bit old now. Why not a CONCORD sanctioned event where any kind of ship can be awarded? It can be phrased as a friendly competition where corporations and alliances can settle their differences.
Goca	Posted - 2006.10.02 01:24:00 - [64] Hmmm; I'd sure like to see this as more of a representative of a small portion of Eve itself. Instead of two fleets sitting there like the English and French fleet at Trafalgar pounding away at each other, hoping to catch some wind.. my view; The Ships & Points For Ships.. Any ship in the game barring capital ships allowed.. Any module and ammo in the game allowed, including EW,NOS whatever (see below) Implants--- this is a sticky point, for me anyhow, just not sure how to look at them.. possibly a more powerful implant takes points, meaning less points for ships? I dunno.. AND most important all matches are based upon a SET time and a SET amount of points, which correspond DIRECTLY with how many each ship was worth, no exceptions.. the points per ship is always a tough one.. but.. TOTAL POINTS 31 Faction BS 14 Tier 3 BS 13 Tier 2 BS 11 Tier 1 BS 10 Tier 2 BC 9 Tier 1 BC 7 Tier 2 Cruiser 8 Tier 1 Cruiser 5 Tier 2 Destroyer 7 Tier 1 Destroyer 3 Tier 2 Frigate 6 Tier 1 Frigate 2 anything below frigate level should be considered a no-show.. So the entire competition is based upon point totals. You destroy an enemy faction battleship, but the rest somehow survived? you get 14 points, destroyed one T1 frigate? you get 2 points and so on.. The two teams with the most points at the end meet in the finals. So basically a round robin.. The Battlegrid.. Instead of the "line of battle" way I really liked one poster's suggestion for warp in, I'll take that further.. Make it like the true Eve enviroment, warp in AND warp out. The GM's can place the center of the battle at we'll say 0km. Each side starts at a set waypoint, say just outside scanner range of the other fleet 15 AU for example. You are given exactly 3 bookmarks BM 1 your start point and #1 warp out point (opposite gang is directly in line across from you) BM 2 the battle point "0km" BM 3 a #2 warp out point in a different direction (bad part is until you warp there, you don't know which direction it is) How this could work, is at the GM's "GO" both sides warp anywhere they desire from 0km to 100km from the 0km point, all ships can warp in at their battle range whatever that is, neither side will know until that moment of meeting what the other side has for ships. BUT ALL SHIPS MUST WARP at the word "GO" and the fight begins. The battleground is 300km across total in a CLEARLY marked circle anyone going outside, poof, out of battle (except warp out see below) Now the warp out option works this way. Any ship on either side can warp OUT at any time, but for each warp OUT you are penalized a set amount of points, and for each minute (or a given timeframe) said person who warped stays at that warp out BM means more points deducted from your final score..(not to mention your team losing a ship that could be fighting).. This prevents people from abusing the warp out but does allow some measure of repair in extreme circumstances and could be used to gain a tactical advantage, with the downside of course being less ultimate points.. One side does NOT have to obiterate the other side, even the killing of the correct ships could be a tactical way to gain points. Some will say this gives too great of a chance to EW ships, well some of us know how fun it is to be in an EW ship and we know who gets shot at first and we also know what it it like when the EW ship has to leave the area... Some might also say this gives an advantage to sniper ships, but remember you don't know what the opponent has for ships.. they may be all ubermwd frigs that will utterly pwn your sniper (unless he warps out, see above, or they have warp jammers)... nor do you know where he will warp in, he may warp to 0km.. You could say this scenario would be like meeting an opposing gang on the other side of a gate and you both forgot scout ships.. stupid Fleet Commander... :) My 2 cents
Wolfgang Jager Caldari Caldari Independent Navy Reserve	Posted - 2006.10.02 05:24:00 - [65] Edited by: Wolfgang Jager on 02/10/2006 05:29:20 Points system: Just pick one and go with it, you will never make everyone happy with it whatever you decide. The idea is sound, but we could all argue the relative points and how many a team should get to spend for the next year or more without reaching a consensus. Module and Ammo type restrictions: You get the oddball tournament results and strange fights because of the weird restrictions on modules/ammo/drones. If you like the atypical fights, then keep the restrictions - otherwise let people field what they want to and I think you will find that it is more balanced than many think. For what it's worth, I fail to see how an ecm duel is any more boring than a nos'ing drone fest...but that's me. Factional modules, Implants and the like: Very simply I think that if you allow the very high end implants you should also allow podding. The intent behind banning ridiculously expensive modules seems to be to make the tournament more affordable....which allowing the high end implants totally negates. It's easy to get a jump clone these days, just use them for the tournament. Heck, be radical and make it a NO implants tournament... Rules enforcement: Lastly, stick to the rules! Doesn't matter what flaws show up, weaknesses exposed, mistakes etc. Finish the tournament with the rules as published beforehand. No additions, changes, deletions from the moment the sign up opens til it ends.
Mextor Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2006.10.02 09:40:00 - [66] Originally by: Raem Civrie 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. if you ban faction implants it comes down to pilot skill and tactics, not the size of you wallet. with faction implants it all boils down to the rich alliances will always win. the tournament is nothing like real PVP anyway, so what differance does it make if there not in, yes there is the fact that IAC, BOB, ASCN and lots of othere alliances, my own included have spent countless billions on these implants, but small pvp alliances thats have good PVPers will not be able to competitively compete due to not being as isk rich as say BOB (cos we all know there not short of a bil or 2). Full Stats
Raem Civrie Umbra Congregatio Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.10.02 12:43:00 - [67] Originally by: Mextor Originally by: Raem Civrie 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. if you ban faction implants it comes down to pilot skill and tactics, not the size of you wallet. with faction implants it all boils down to the rich alliances will always win. the tournament is nothing like real PVP anyway, so what differance does it make if there not in, yes there is the fact that IAC, BOB, ASCN and lots of othere alliances, my own included have spent countless billions on these implants, but small pvp alliances thats have good PVPers will not be able to competitively compete due to not being as isk rich as say BOB (cos we all know there not short of a bil or 2). Technical difficulties make it hard to ban implants. It's apparently hard to scan for them and time consuming. As in, delay each match 40 minutes time consuming. ---- All you do is bark, you never meow.
Tyrrax Thorrk Amarr Umbra Congregatio Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.10.02 13:00:00 - [68] Edited by: Tyrrax Thorrk on 02/10/2006 13:03:19 Originally by: Derran Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk 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. So basically, you don't want frigates in the tournament? You have that many points and you might as well not even allow them at all. What you proposing sounds no different than the last tournament, maybe even worse. There would be even less of a turnout this time than the last tournament. For those who don't like it, there is a simple solution. Don't sign up for it. The way it looks right now, I can see alot more people signing up for this one than the last one and very likely less no shows. While not a fan of a point allocation system myself, I can see some positive things. For starters, the opposing team's ship types will be less predictable. It didn't take a genius to know that Navy Ravens would be used and the first 2 ships lost were the two weakest. I can't tell you how boring the matches were to watch in the last tournament except for 2 of them. The other downside were matches had to be laid out to make it long enough due to the low turnout, which just made it feel like it dragged on and on. The amount of points garantees that not every ship will be a T2 ship. Has a decision been reached on the gear? T2 only or faction allowed? What about prizes? The whole caldari mothership and carriers is getting a bit old now. Why not a CONCORD sanctioned event where any kind of ship can be awarded? It can be phrased as a friendly competition where corporations and alliances can settle their differences. Where do you see me not wanting frigates ? Saying should be 7 members on team this time , and less mass than last time allowed (even with 31 points) would seem to indicate 2-3 frigates at least Altho I guess it depends on how many points each ship costs ;P I think it'd be pretty cool to see a 5 person team with BS, CS, cruiser, 2 frigs against another team of 7 with 1 BS, 3 cruiser 3 frigates.. There were few problems with the last tournament, tbh starting at 30 km negates most of them anyway, so no need to go all restrict happy on what kind of tactics you can field and what kind of ships etc etc. Gear restrictions are same as last time, cosmos, named and t2 allowed, faction/officer/ not. And yes I think everyone agrees the rewards last time were very lame and hopefully we won't be stuck with anything that boring this time. As for why faction modules aren't allowed, I don't think it's about ISK like someone said, exuro mortis guy I think, more of a balance issue, faction mods make tanks much harder to cr ack and don't have that much effect on damage output, making for longer more boring fights.. Implants are in for good, no point wasting energy on that issue ;P http://eve.klaki.net/
Vito Parabellum Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.10.02 17:35:00 - [69] Originally by: Raem Civrie Technical difficulties make it hard to ban implants. It's apparently hard to scan for them and time consuming. As in, delay each match 40 minutes time consuming. How long can it take to program a simple tool for implant scanning for GM's? I'd guess an hour, maybe two.
Trevedian Amarr KR0M The Red Skull	Posted - 2006.10.02 17:55:00 - [70] Edited by: Trevedian on 02/10/2006 17:57:30 Originally by: Raem Civrie 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. The Amarr Succession Championship was 4 v 4 frigates, 1 Champion, 3 Wingmen... But using all Tech 1 ships for the coming tourney was suggested... Isk is not an issue... The only people whining about it is people that didn't even try to compete the last tourney. This is the old chestnut that greedy carecears fall back on, no one lost last time because they didn't have enough isk. But many faction BS were wasted, who used a Nightmare anyway? Pirate Implants are staying, so get over it and start devising a strategy. Its true that no matter what point total Lemonde settles on, people will be unhappy. But I don't like the 2 out of 3 tiebreaker either, who wants to watch a best of 3 after a 15 minute stalemate... Vito Parabellum was right that podding would not be an issue even if it was allowed (which it will not be, CCP policy). No one would be dumb enough to fit scramblers. The SIZE of the arena is a BIG issue as well... Sex0r > you're bounty turns me on.. you seem like the kind of amarrian to dominate me

SLIM Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2006.10.02 18:14:00 - [71] There is a very simple method of ensuring that there are NO implants. It's called jump clones. Install a jump clone for each participant in a station that they cannot reach by normal means (ie, jove space). They must jump themselves to said clone an hour or so before the match. This precludes them jumping back within 24 hours, ensuring that they have no implants. Stock the station market with anything they'd need (T2, meta loot, etc) a la fight club. Of course, this should take the contestants all of five minutes since they should have their setups figured out ahead of time. Infomorph psychology is a very simple skill to learn, it shouldn't be an issue. And really, crystals (and pirate implants in general) are stupidly overpowered. So are some cosmos modules. Both should be banned from this tourney. I like the points aspect. I don't think everyone will do the same thing. I do think almost everyone will grab a bs, but some might choose two T2 cruisers over a bc, for example. I would suggest upping the points a tiny bit. Perhaps 25-28 or so. Also, a hard cap on total ships would be nice, but at the upper end of the range, say 7-10. Regarding ECM. I think last time's rules were quite excellent in that regard. ECM as it is is nothing but a dumb luck dice roll. It has no place in a pvp tourney. And to preempt the coming comments about how damage is too, damage hits will happen thousands of times in the tourney. ECM may happen less than 20. Clearly, the law of averages is not on our side. Damps and tracking disruptors will also merely slow down fights and simply force more people into ravens or nos/drone boats. Final thing is a question regarding eligibility. How will it be run this time?
Ithildin Gallente The Corporation	Posted - 2006.10.02 18:56:00 - [72] Goca, please be more careful with the terms "tier" versus "tech". A tier 2 cruiser is nowhere near as powerful as a tech 2 cruiser, for example. SLIM, the point with the tournament is not only to fight (senseless fights is something test server sees plenty of), it is also to make the players do the concious choice of what to use. Some might have easy and cheap access to, for example, Vagabonds - how would you price equipment in the "fight club" station? Since there are devs moderating the tournament, I shouldn't think there's too much of a trouble to check the participants for illegal implants, though. If a team has a participant with illegal implants, that team is DQed from the fight. Simple. - Three years old
Templer Relleg FATAL REVELATIONS Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.10.02 19:05:00 - [73] By the time this is gonna be held, Kali 1 would(Unless you push it even more) most likely be out. What are the rules gonna be, on the combat boosters and rigs?
SLIM Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2006.10.02 19:21:00 - [74] Originally by: Ithildin Goca, please be more careful with the terms "tier" versus "tech". A tier 2 cruiser is nowhere near as powerful as a tech 2 cruiser, for example. SLIM, the point with the tournament is not only to fight (senseless fights is something test server sees plenty of), it is also to make the players do the concious choice of what to use. Some might have easy and cheap access to, for example, Vagabonds - how would you price equipment in the "fight club" station? I'd be fine with them pricing it with say, forge average prices. By fight club setup, I meant the availability, no the prices. Alternatively, they could just move the ships that are pre-setup by the player (after checking the cargo hold of course).
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.10.02 19:35:00 - [75] It's funny to see some people say isk is not an issue, then see their abusrd arguements to back it up. ISK isn't an issue? Alright then, prove it by using almost none of it. Let's see the 'skill' of some of these greats by having them fight with the lesser setups. Nobody lost because they didn't have enough ISK? I'm sure giving full HG pirate sets to some teams would've affected the outcomes of their fights. Sad to see people so scared to fight without a crutch. Anyways, as far as the current setup goes, there's still questions to be asked: Can we change the team setup from match to match (maybe drop two small ships for a larger, or vice versa)? What's the arena size? Will you mark the boarders so people know how much further they can go? Using a beacon for the center of the ring would suffice. Why are you limited the number of certain mods? That's saying you don't approve of some tactics, like the use of ewar. Why do a set starting range? Have the teams warp in to the ring's beacon at a range of their choice. If a team wants to go in as snipers, having to start 30km away instead of 100km is a huge nerf to them (not that 30km is fun to cover with most short range ships). Why were cap injectors mentioned? I'd hope you guys weren't considering removing them, since alot BS tend to need them just to fire their weapons for a long period of time. Will you guys please stick to your 15 minute time limit? Shouldn't best 2 out of 3 duels only be held if it's ruled a clear tie? IE, not some inty flying around dodging attacks for 10 minutes because the rest of their team was annhilated flawlessly. Why limit team size? If some team decides they want to use a mix of a dozen t1/t2 frigs, let them. Points do need a re-work though. 2 points to field a T2 frig, but 3 points to field a t1 destroyer? One destroyer is not worth 1 1/2 of any T2 frig in this tourny, excluding cov-ops, which I can't imagine anyone would use. And since you have tier3 BS listed, then this means you plan to have Kali out before this, which should also mean ewar has been nerfed by then, right? If so, why exclude ewar? Assuming the nerf doesnt still leave it overkill in general that is. Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile. Originally by: Oveur last 30 days had 2358 accounts banned.
Trevedian Amarr KR0M The Red Skull	Posted - 2006.10.02 20:32:00 - [76] Originally by: Malthros Zenobia It's funny to see some people say isk is not an issue, then see their abusrd arguements to back it up. ISK isn't an issue? Alright then, prove it by using almost none of it. Let's see the 'skill' of some of these greats by having them fight with the lesser setups. Nobody lost because they didn't have enough ISK? I'm sure giving full HG pirate sets to some teams would've affected the outcomes of their fights. Sad to see people so scared to fight without a crutch. Anyways, as far as the current setup goes, there's still questions to be asked: Can we change the team setup from match to match (maybe drop two small ships for a larger, or vice versa)? What's the arena size? Will you mark the boarders so people know how much further they can go? Using a beacon for the center of the ring would suffice. Why are you limited the number of certain mods? That's saying you don't approve of some tactics, like the use of ewar. Why do a set starting range? Have the teams warp in to the ring's beacon at a range of their choice. If a team wants to go in as snipers, having to start 30km away instead of 100km is a huge nerf to them (not that 30km is fun to cover with most short range ships). Why were cap injectors mentioned? I'd hope you guys weren't considering removing them, since alot BS tend to need them just to fire their weapons for a long period of time. Will you guys please stick to your 15 minute time limit? Shouldn't best 2 out of 3 duels only be held if it's ruled a clear tie? IE, not some inty flying around dodging attacks for 10 minutes because the rest of their team was annhilated flawlessly. Why limit team size? If some team decides they want to use a mix of a dozen t1/t2 frigs, let them. Points do need a re-work though. 2 points to field a T2 frig, but 3 points to field a t1 destroyer? One destroyer is not worth 1 1/2 of any T2 frig in this tourny, excluding cov-ops, which I can't imagine anyone would use. And since you have tier3 BS listed, then this means you plan to have Kali out before this, which should also mean ewar has been nerfed by then, right? If so, why exclude ewar? Assuming the nerf doesnt still leave it overkill in general that is. Once again, Kimotoro Directive who is whining here about isk did not compete in the last tourney. Even the smallest, poorest, carebear alliance has 5-6 people that can fork out 500 mil for low grade pirate implants, so go use that excuse elsewhere. ASCN made it to the finals last time and they didn't have Crystal Implants... I don't know if they had Slave Implants, some of them prolly did but it didn't matter cuz no one (MC Briefly did) came close to stripping their armor off. I'm not arguing that there should be Pirate Faction Implants in the tourrney, but it has been discussed with the Devs, and it would be very time consuming to check every1's implants. For the people who think its so easy to do, by all mean go write a program that does it, but ur clueless. The reason cap charges are being discussed is because people are watching these fights on EVE TV and the commentators and viewers want exciting fights... You can fit over twenty 400 cap charges in a Vulture, what fun is that? There were several fights last time where the Victor was already determined but cap charges fed shield tanks and slowed down the inevitable... Teams were gonna lose anyway, but they just wanted to use lotsa charges and keep their tank going for as long as they could AND BORE EVERY1 WATCHING TO TEARS! People need to remember that this event is being broadcast and I think its completely understandable that CCP and EVE TV wants it to be exciting to watch... There will be limits placed on what can be done PVP wise, but every1 can adapt to that, rather than whining about why u can't use 21 T1 frigs, sheeze. Sex0r > you're bounty turns me on.. you seem like the kind of amarrian to dominate me
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.10.02 22:53:00 - [77] Originally by: Trevedian Once again, Kimotoro Directive who is whining here about isk did not compete in the last tourney. Even the smallest, poorest, carebear alliance has 5-6 people that can fork out 500 mil for low grade pirate implants, so go use that excuse elsewhere. It seems you have a hard time grasping what I'm saying, let's try a different approach: Trevedian, it has nothing to do with isk. My orginal dislike for those implants, comes from CCP wanting to limit the use of mods and tactics they see as 'overpowered', yet they did not, and still are not, limiting implants which have no 'non-faction' competition. Do you understand that? I'm not sure how else to explain it to you. I have no doubt others can afford pirate implants, as can I, THAT'S NOT THE POINT. If you're interested as to why KD didn't take part, those in charge did not sign us up, feel free to ask those in-charge. I doubt you actually care, since to know the reason, would be to take away a petty thing for you to harp on when I post here (not that I liked the reason I was given as to why we didn't sign up). I'm not the Kimotoro Directive, so stop acting like you're talking to the alliance when you aren't. And for the record: I have pirate implants on this char, so pardon me if I find the idea of someone telling me to buy pirate implants to be alittle funny. It's not like I want to carry a backup set in my cargohold. With that out of the way... I do understand your point on cap injectors though. In some fights it did drag out the inevitable. However, I think you'd agree it's reasonable to say that quite a few fights were won by those injectors being allowed. Still, they're a vital part of alot of setups. If they were to remove those for a tourny, I wouldn't be suprised to see alot more minny ships and domis. Then we'd probably get a NOS nerf due to all the NOSDomis... If they want exciting fights, that's one thing, but if they're too limiting on setups, the exciting fights will become cookie-cutter fights. Maybe they need to just be strict about the time-limit, and if two teams can't kill each other in 15minutes, they both get a loss (or in this tourny's case they go to that best 2 out of 3 duel). If you still need something cleared up, feel free to ask. Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile. Originally by: Oveur last 30 days had 2358 accounts banned.
Mextor Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2006.10.03 10:26:00 - [78] Edited by: Mextor on 03/10/2006 10:26:29 One of the reasons some of the fights lasted so long is because ppl setup to tank so well and didnÆt think about damage, just hopped there cap/tank would last longer. Logistics drone was one of the main aids to help ur tank last longer, maybe taking them out of the tournament would help to make the fights quicker and will defiantly stop ppl from just sitting there with a load of drones repping them. Also banning faction implants is not so hard, if the GMÆs give +8 standings to all alliances or corps (which ever it may be) a few days before the fighting begins. Then all they have to do is move ppl 10 mins earlier and they can be scanned first (to make sure they have no implants in there cargo hold), and them dock install a jump clone, undock and self destruct there pods. It will cost about 17mil isk per person and that will clover u up to about 61 mil SP, thus meaning it will cost about 85 mil per team per fight, which is a lot better than 10 bil plus on faction implants for the rich teams and a few hundred mil for the not so rich teams. This is ment to be a PVP tournament not a, my wallet it bigger than urÆs tournament. If u ban faction implants it brings it back to pilot skills, team tactics and a bit of luck which itÆs what its ment to be all about. Full Stats
Raem Civrie Umbra Congregatio Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.10.03 16:54:00 - [79] Originally by: Mextor Edited by: Mextor on 03/10/2006 10:26:29 One of the reasons some of the fights lasted so long is because ppl setup to tank so well and didnÆt think about damage, just hopped there cap/tank would last longer. Logistics drone was one of the main aids to help ur tank last longer, maybe taking them out of the tournament would help to make the fights quicker and will defiantly stop ppl from just sitting there with a load of drones repping them. Also banning faction implants is not so hard, if the GMÆs give +8 standings to all alliances or corps (which ever it may be) a few days before the fighting begins. Then all they have to do is move ppl 10 mins earlier and they can be scanned first (to make sure they have no implants in there cargo hold), and them dock install a jump clone, undock and self destruct there pods. It will cost about 17mil isk per person and that will clover u up to about 61 mil SP, thus meaning it will cost about 85 mil per team per fight, which is a lot better than 10 bil plus on faction implants for the rich teams and a few hundred mil for the not so rich teams. This is ment to be a PVP tournament not a, my wallet it bigger than urÆs tournament. If u ban faction implants it brings it back to pilot skills, team tactics and a bit of luck which itÆs what its ment to be all about. And... why? The only seriously imbalancing implant set was Crystals, and CCP have already said they are looking into that. Slaves add 56% to your armor with full set, fine, but it doesn't help your tank. It just extends your life a little. As for the "this should be 100% skill and not an SP/ISK e-peen competition" argument, the oft-used counter-argument is that this is not the Hobo Bumfight Tournament. Fact is, neither has been stated to be the true goal of the tournament by CCP. CCP who have, so far, allowed tech2 and faction ships, faction implants and hardwirings, all very costly things that alliances can nonetheless afford. This is top-tier, best of the best. There are t1 frigate tournaments held regularly by the community. You can go there and prove you're the best PvP'er, or come to the Fanfest and participate there (last time it was spawned max-skill character, and unlimited access to t1 stuff). For me, the thought that my team is spending upwards of fifteen billion on this tournament, and other competing teams approaching similar sums, makes it all a little more... exciting. In any case, money doesn't cover for skill, no more than a fast car makes up for a bad driver. I firmly believe you can get far in the tournament with relatively small investments, but not many seem ready to even try, still stuck in the "MONEY IS EVERYTHING" mentality of PvP that frankly betrays their own experience. Yeah, so when you go up against people that have equal skill to yours, but could afford pirate implants and faction battleships... you lose. Is that really so hard to face? Is it so painful to think that money might decide the outcome in a match that could've gone either way? Doesn't it just mean that the guy that just beat you... also thought of making money as well as being a good PvP'er? Or being backed by a large enough body that could support him? And that begs the question... why didn't you? It's an equal playing field. Some people just put more into this than others, and frankly so far I've seen the bums crying. Can't afford a full pirate implant set, and therefor don't think you can win? Boo-hoo. I can't either, not right now. Hence I'm working my ass off making enough money before December so I can cover my own expenses on the team. Why? Because I don't want to be a whining bum. ---- All you do is bark, you never meow.
Shin Ra BURN EDEN	Posted - 2006.10.03 18:44:00 - [80] LeMonde, you are forgetting that this is a pvp tournament not a showcase event. Stop with all the stupid rules.

Mextor Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2006.10.03 19:09:00 - [81] to be fare Raem i alrdy have a set of high grade crystal implants installed from the last pvp tourny and i dont have any problems with using them balanced or not, the surgestion i'm making is only an idea Originally by: LeMonde These issues are still open for discussion. If you feel you have valuable input, don't hesitate to post. which is what i have done, made a post. and if u think, and i quote Originally by: Raem Civrie I firmly believe you can get far in the tournament with relatively small investments so what ur saying is, u think u could do as well as the final 4 like u guys did last time without any faction implants? because that is what it looks like to me. so there for the IDEA of taking them out is not such a bad one after all. and from a point of whinning the only one on here whinning is you from what i can see. Full Stats
Minnow maught Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2006.10.03 19:46:00 - [82] Why not add a cost in allocation points for using implants?
Raem Civrie Umbra Congregatio Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.10.04 00:19:00 - [83] Edited by: Raem Civrie on 04/10/2006 00:21:21 Originally by: Mextor to be fare Raem i alrdy have a set of high grade crystal implants installed from the last pvp tourny and i dont have any problems with using them balanced or not, the surgestion i'm making is only an idea Originally by: LeMonde These issues are still open for discussion. If you feel you have valuable input, don't hesitate to post. which is what i have done, made a post. and if u think, and i quote Originally by: Raem Civrie I firmly believe you can get far in the tournament with relatively small investments so what ur saying is, u think u could do as well as the final 4 like u guys did last time without any faction implants? because that is what it looks like to me. so there for the IDEA of taking them out is not such a bad one after all. and from a point of whinning the only one on here whinning is you from what i can see. ALL HAIL MORTRON, GOD OF CONVOLUTED AND INANE ARGUMENTS. Hi. Clue. Get far. With Ultimate Skill, win. How many people possess the Ultimate Skill? There's plenty of people with Good Skill, even Extraordinary Skill, that also have money. Who also are prepared to invest time into preparation for this. This makes them more worth of winning than the Good/Extraordinarily Skilled people... who don't. If you want to enter an argument with me, the least you could do is read what I write. Otherwise you accomplish nothing that couldn't be done by running into a brick wall repeatedly. ---- All you do is bark, you never meow.
SLIM Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2006.10.04 02:21:00 - [84] Originally by: Raem Civrie Hi. Clue. Get far. With Ultimate Skill, win. How many people possess the Ultimate Skill? There's plenty of people with Good Skill, even Extraordinary Skill, that also have money. Who also are prepared to invest time into preparation for this. This makes them more worth of winning than the Good/Extraordinarily Skilled people... who don't. If you want to enter an argument with me, the least you could do is read what I write. Otherwise you accomplish nothing that couldn't be done by running into a brick wall repeatedly. And yet you didn't answer his question. Funny, that. Do you think you could have gotten to the final four with a 'small investment'? (hint, the answer is no). No need to be a***** about it just because he exposed the obvious falsehood in your post; your basic point is still valid. Not necessarily correct, but valid. Right now people seem to be split fairly evenly between those who feel money should influence the outcome, and those who think it should not. When I say money, I don't mean tech II money. Anyone who's been playing for half a year or so can scrounge up the necessary money for tech II fittings. The sticking point seems to be where we get into the 2-3b per person category. Beyond that, without ECM this devolves into one of two things (note: I am NOT advocating ECM be in). Who can tank the most, or who can gank the most. If you leave crystals and rep drones in, it's who can tank the most. If you take them out, it's who can gank the most. Given the total boredom of last year's fights, I'd lean towards the latter. At least there will be lots of explosions, and we might even be able to compress the time a bit.
Corey Grim FinFleet Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.10.04 04:35:00 - [85] damn i thought u finally are gonna put those implants to bay its not isk issue of any of the alliances its just plainly restiricting tactics that would otherwise used. all ur gonna see in that tourney will be crystal set CNR¦s and that is fun ? think about what banning all implants would do to this tournament. in my humble opinion it would save tournaments face, and we would see really much interesting fights in there, not just uber shield tanking caldari scum, but pure dmg setups also. ECM (meaning damps, ecm etc) should be kept at bay. TP restiriction aint good thing coz they are definately part of game and some ships relay on them. Web restiriction is good coz it makes fights more interesting and adds a bit more room to play around with tactics. Remo repping/remo shield boosting is bad coz that allmost never happens in real combat situations also making uber tank more uber is just boring, drones are ok coz that happens a lot in eve. there are bit too few points it should be done so that alliance can field a real Squad not just 2 uber ships and 1 t1 frig. Faction Battleship 10 Tier 3 Battleship 10 Tier 2 Battleship 9 Tier 1 Battleship 9 T2 Battlecruiser 7 T1 Battlecruiser 5 T2 Cruiser 6 T1 Cruiser 4 T2 Frigate 3 T1 Frigate 1 T2 Destroyer 2 T1 Destroyer 1 points used would be 28. -no more than one BS -no more than one T2 BC -no more than one recon. -max nro of pilots 8 after that there would be nicely different gangs in there: couple of examples: 1x BS / 2x T1 BC / 1x T2 cruiser / 1x T2 destroyer. or someone would prefer to have max numbers: 1x BS / 6x T2 frigs. or someone doesnt want to take BS in the field: 3x T2 cruiser / 1x BC / 1x T2 Frigate / 1x T2 destroyer crappy examples i know but what i am trying to point out here is that alliance tournament should be somewhat flexible in ship choices and tactics as it is now it aint. its quite obvious that if used that point system allmost everyone goes for T2 BC and faction/tier3 BS but the rest would remain mystery.
Mextor Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2006.10.04 10:36:00 - [86] Edited by: Mextor on 04/10/2006 10:36:49 good points, and i would just like to say about your comment Originally by: Corey Grim not just uber shield tanking caldari scum. god dam Minmatars slaves Full Stats
Semkhet The Priory	Posted - 2006.10.04 16:10:00 - [87] - If you allow LG/HG sets, then inject some counterbalance by allowing podding during the tournament. If a pilot or alliance whishes to use an advantage purely based upon isk disponibility, this should not happen without risk against opponents who may not enjoy such ability. I use such sets and know perfectly well the difference it makes against someone who doesen't. Besides, podding would enhance the value of small ships with naturally fast locking times. Of course, pods should be allowed to warp out if they succeed to do so. - Fix an absolute limit in cap value that a team may hold in booster charges to avoid boring tanking during a whole match. - Don't limit the number of pilots during a match. The points-based system is self-discriminatory. If someone wants to fight with 21 frigates it should be allowed to. This could only enhance the number of plausible strategies teams may apply and make the whole process funnier. - Allow cloaks and allow cloakers to cloak 5 seconds before the matches. Allowing teams to relocate their ships or covertly approaching opponents before engaging would only enhance the tactical aspect. It is a two-edged sword since the hostile fire would be directed to your remaining visible ships. Also, a mandatory time limit should be imposed where all the cloakers should then uncloak no matter if they reached their assigned target or location in order to avoid a team to simply hide. For example we could say that when the 5th minute of the match is reached, all remaining cloakers should uncloak withing 60 seconds, any team failing to comply being disqualified. This would add uncertainty/surprise into the equation and also could favorise gank setups since cloaked ships avoid absorbing damage during their approach.
Coronach	Posted - 2006.10.04 22:08:00 - [88] I think, for one, pilots who suggest anything that requires coding should pretty much give it up right now. The devs at CCP need to be working on fixes, stability, and new Kali features, not one-off (or twice-a-year) Alliance Tournament features. Two, this isn't really a PVP tournament... it's an Alliance Tournament, and more than that, a showcase for EVE. Much "real" day-to-day PVP in EVE is so fast and one-sided that it really doesn't make for much of a "sporting event". The tournament is about proving that your ALLIANCE is the MOST DETERMINED to win. Skill, skill-points, and ISK play contributing factors, but they are all simply a measure of your team's commitment to winning. Three, try to accept that the rules that CCP will best be able to enforce, are those that existing tools allow for. We can scan a ship and its cargo. So we can control mods and ammo (and cap charges if need be). I think most pilots are fine with the no T2 ammo or deadspace or officer mods limitation. Though since this is ostensibly to prevent unbreakable tanks, perhaps an allowed/restricted list would be better -- enabling mods that boost damage to be included. Implants can't be scanned, so suck it up... they're in. With perhaps Crystals being re-balanced. Don't like spending the ISK? Sorry, this is an Alliance Tournament, you can go do the Hobo Bumfight Tournament on your own time. Want to force people to use free jumpclones? No, a pilot may already have the maximum amount of jump clones already, all with expensive implants. A bonus jumpclone? No, extra coding = not going to happen. Want to allow podding? Why? You seem obsessed with punishing owners of implants. It doesn't improve the spectacle of the event, and without tackling no one will be podded (unless someone brings a smartbomb, and still not likely then). Plus, it makes logistics more difficult if a pilot who is podded but whose team wins has to be brought back to the tournament system, but first has to prepare his new clone. And, by the way, the alliances that are fielding teams with full sets of expensive implants, will have replacements ready. So yeah, you are making them spend more ISK to reinforce their commitment to winning -- apparently leaving you even further behind. Is that your goal? Four, anything that makes the logistics more difficult, and it will already be more difficult due to the expected increase in participation, is a bad idea. This is mainly about the 21 T1 frigate concept. We all know how fun frigate gangs are, but we all also probably know how difficult they can be to organize. And try it with the same pilots at specific times (times which you don't get to pick) over the course of two weekends. Then try to imagine yourself being the GM who has to re-locate all these pilots to the tournament system and to check each one for rules violations. Bzzt. Not going to happen. Get over it. Five is a good number. Variation between three to seven could be interesting. But a realitively low (single digit) upper limit must be kept. So yeah, to go back to my original point... before you post here about your interesting new tournament idea, ask yourself... "Does this require more coding?" If the answer is yes, try posting it in: Features and Ideas Discussion In regards to the rules posted by LeMonde, I think they're fine. With perhaps a revised ship cost, slightly more points to spend, and removing all non-faction T1 ships smaller than battleships. (You want to play? Show up in something meaningful. ) I suggest some pilots posting here spend less time moaning and more time preparing (and then come back with lessons learned from your preparations). I can assure you that the real contenders already are. Coronach
Trevedian Amarr KR0M The Red Skull	Posted - 2006.10.04 23:02:00 - [89] Edited by: Trevedian on 04/10/2006 23:02:11 Originally by: Shin Ra LeMonde, you are forgetting that this is a pvp tournament not a showcase event. Stop with all the stupid rules. Shin Ra are u mad that this tournament makes your 5 Warp Core Stab Setups useless? Sex0r > you're bounty turns me on.. you seem like the kind of amarrian to dominate me
Corey Grim FinFleet Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.10.05 02:54:00 - [90] Originally by: Coronach I think most pilots are fine with the no T2 ammo or deadspace or officer mods limitation. Though since this is ostensibly to prevent unbreakable tanks, perhaps an allowed/restricted list would be better -- enabling mods that boost damage to be included. so in these lines you are saying that "unbreakable" tanks are bad thing so i was believing that next comes the "no implatns" line. but obviously i was wrong. Originally by: Coronach Implants can't be scanned, so suck it up... they're in. With perhaps Crystals being re-balanced. and now ur saying they should be in.... ok now i have simple question for you: would you please show me where has DEV or any CCP guy wroted that implants cant be scanned ???? you speak about allowing larger scale of tactics in your post and still in other hand you would restirict them (not just implant thingie). ppl want implants out of this tournament, that is public opinion, surely everyone (even those who want implants in) have noticed that. i agree that coding things just for this tournament should be kept at minimum BUT this is afterall the biggest event in new eden, so doing 1- max 2 days of work to make it successfull would be fine by me.

Quutar Caldari Uxor Infensus	Posted - 2006.10.05 03:54:00 - [91] want to make it fair? 1 billion isk entry fee... non refundable. all participants are required to have one "empty" jump clone "slot". When an alliance signs up they give a list of the participants. CCP simply installs a jump clone for those participants in the polaris/jovian system. At that station all tech 1 and tech 2 ships are on the market for 100 isk... let the team fit out thier ships at polaris. this basically puts all alliances on an even keel. They are limited to the same level of equipment, and since they used a jump clone to get to polaris they have no implants. sonofabeachballbouncingmarymotherfiretrucker
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.10.05 05:23:00 - [92] Originally by: Quutar want to make it fair? 1 billion isk entry fee... non refundable. all participants are required to have one "empty" jump clone "slot". When an alliance signs up they give a list of the participants. CCP simply installs a jump clone for those participants in the polaris/jovian system. At that station all tech 1 and tech 2 ships are on the market for 100 isk... let the team fit out thier ships at polaris. this basically puts all alliances on an even keel. They are limited to the same level of equipment, and since they used a jump clone to get to polaris they have no implants. One problem (of a few) that idea has: People would make money due to insurance payouts, and CCP would have to go around taking away the insurance payout, and theyd have to see which insurance payout the player had so they don't take too much/little, and it removes the investment and risk aspect. Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
Coronach	Posted - 2006.10.05 06:25:00 - [93] Originally by: Corey Grim Originally by: Coronach I think most pilots are fine with the no T2 ammo or deadspace or officer mods limitation. Though since this is ostensibly to prevent unbreakable tanks, perhaps an allowed/restricted list would be better -- enabling mods that boost damage to be included. so in these lines you are saying that "unbreakable" tanks are bad thing so i was believing that next comes the "no implatns" line. but obviously i was wrong. I defy you to demonstrate to me that Halo, Slave, Snake, or Talisman implant sets result in unbreakable tanks. There is one set of implants which does, Crystal. And they may be looked at by the devs -- as previously stated above in this very thread. There is no need to further limit pilots from using the others. If you would like to know more about these faction implants, look here: Pirate Implants FAQ Originally by: Corey Grim Originally by: Coronach Implants can't be scanned, so suck it up... they're in. With perhaps Crystals being re-balanced. and now ur saying they should be in.... ok now i have simple question for you: would you please show me where has DEV or any CCP guy wroted that implants cant be scanned ???? Sir, I refer you to the following modules which are currently in the game and working. Cargo Scanner I Ship Scanner I They provide the required cargo and ship scanning functionality that I mentioned. Funcationality that already exists, is in the game, and is well tested. Can you refer me to a similar module for scanning characters for their implants? I predict you cannot do so. You believe that a feature exists because no dev or CCP person has posted that it does not exist. Whereas I believe that a feature does not exist because I cannot find it in the game, nor in the module database, and no dev or CCP person has posted that it does exist. If you do not see the weakness of your position, it is most likely beyond my capacity to illuminate it for you. Perhaps you imagine a special version of the client that the devs use which can somehow scan characters for implants. I remind you that the devs don't run this event, the GMs do. And, though I could be mistaken, I believe the GMs use the same client as you and I. Originally by: Corey Grim you speak about allowing larger scale of tactics in your post and still in other hand you would restirict them (not just implant thingie). I am unable to make sense of this statement. You assert that I, on one hand encourage more variety in tactics, but on the other discourage them. I fail to see to what you refer. Please clarify. From my standpoint, I propose the greatest possible amount of modules and implants to be included, except those that push the tanking curve beyond what is breakable. As I said, let in more modules, and include all the implants (presuming Crystals are balanced). A specific, finite list of restricted or permitted modules (and implants) can be clearly delineated with sufficient time left for the participants to plan accordingly. <More to follow.>
Coronach	Posted - 2006.10.05 06:42:00 - [94] Originally by: Corey Grim ppl want implants out of this tournament, that is public opinion, surely everyone (even those who want implants in) have noticed that. A vocal minority, who are unwilling to play the game as it is presented, and instead seek to pervert it into something else entirely, does not make for public opinion. I contend that the majority of the pilots who are actually going to enter this event don't even feel the need to post. They read the rules and then plan how to best take advantage of them. If you would like to argue that the spectators of the event should influence its structure, then I can see that as a valid point. But you quickly lose me at how you connect that to removing implants from the competition. How does seeing pilots putting their skills and tactics, implants and skill points, and ships and modules to amazing use diminish your enjoyment of the spectacle? CCP seeks mechanical feedback on the rules they have presented. Not knee-jerk displays of inferiority complexes. Not new rules. If you truly believe that any of the rules presented by CCP for the tournament will lead to unsatisfying conflicts then demonstrate it quantifiably. BoB effectively did this in the last tournament with their Crystal implants, and hence Crystal implants are being "looked at". Though, if BoB, or anyone, can present a compelling counter-argument for how Crystals can be beaten, then the implants will likely be left in (and in unmodified form), and the community as a whole will benefit from the knowledge. Originally by: Corey Grim i agree that coding things just for this tournament should be kept at minimum BUT this is afterall the biggest event in new eden, so doing 1- max 2 days of work to make it successfull would be fine by me. Sorry, no buts about it. It is easy to succumb to the seduction of, "Lets just create this." And "Lets just create that." Why make this harder and riskier (new code = new risk) than we need to? The teams that are going to be most effective in this tournament are the ones that are already saying, "What do we have? And what can we do with it?" * * * Oh, by the way Corey, when I write "you" in my arguments, I don't really mean you specifically, just anyone in general who advocates the issues I am opposing. It's not personal, it's just a game!

LeMonde	Posted - 2006.10.05 09:12:00 - [95] A few things that need to be cleared up: 1) There are devs running the event, but scanning every single character for implants would simply take too much time with the limited manpower we have. The same goes for setting standings and/or creating jump clones. The volunteers do an excellent job in helping us 2) Tech 2 ammo is not allowed. 3) We cannot do warp-in's or out's, simply because targeting for EveTV has to be done before the fight starts. 4) The reason for all the rules is because this is not regular Eve PVP. Some modules become a lot more powerful than normally and somehow, we have to try to limit those to keep people's options open for other things. I think the points system acomplishes this in a big way, but there are a few more adjustments we have to make aswell. Sticking to this set-up, but bumping it up to 25 points is something I think would be pretty fair. We will never get everybody to agree to one setup or another, so I simply say that if you can come up with something better and provide a good argument for it, we will of course read it, compare and possibly change it. 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. A maximum of five pilots per team. 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.).

Tyrrax Thorrk Amarr Umbra Congregatio Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.10.05 10:24:00 - [96] Why not allow more than one HAC ? HACs don't promote stalemates and they're higher on dmg output than on tank, seems like a pointless restriction (to be avoided). Kinda like the painter restriction.. And if it's viable to have 5 on team 2 substitutes why not 7 on team ? http://eve.klaki.net/
Corey Grim FinFleet Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.10.05 10:50:00 - [97] Edited by: Corey Grim on 05/10/2006 10:50:41 Originally by: Coronach I defy you to demonstrate to me that Halo, Slave, Snake, or Talisman implant sets result in unbreakable tanks. There are many other ways to tank damage than pure boosting shield boost amount. let me explain: Crystal: this is the easiest one so i dont bother explaining it. Snake: higher speed=higher transversal=less change for your enemy to hit you, Result: not so much damage in= better tank holding. Snake is of course best used in smallish ships. Halo: lower signature radius=less change for your enemy to hit you. Result: not so much damage in= better tank holding. best used with example: vagabond. Talisman: this ones a bit harder and not so straight forward: 5% reduction in the duration of modules requiring the Energy emission systems: example nosferatus. i agree this set aint straightly related to tank, oh but wait what do u use cap for... (okay okay someone needs cap for shooting too ). Slave: can you tell me what +53.63% more armor is if its not tanking ? There is no such thing as unbreakable tank tho. i was merely quoting you, we both know we speak uber tanks that makes fights boring . Originally by: Coronach Can you refer me to a similar module for scanning characters for their implants? I predict you cannot do so. Ever heard of DEV tools ? there is no similiar module as example: cargo scanner. i thought you wouldnt keep me so stupid not to understand that. Originally by: LeMonde scanning every single character for implants would simply take too much time with the limited manpower we have. ^^That is the reason i can understand. Saying that they can not has all the time been my reason to argue your point that they cant. Originally by: Coronach I am unable to make sense of this statement. You assert that I, on one hand encourage more variety in tactics, but on the other discourage them. I fail to see to what you refer. Please clarify. [quote/] puuuuuhhhh ... when do you realize the point that there is "only" 5 pirate implant sets with 5 different bonuses. When EVE have pirate implant set to every thing your ship has setted atributes then it would not be restiricting tactics. ( /me wants to see pirate implant set for increasing cargo space = more cap booster charges ). Originally by: Coronach If you would like to argue that the spectators of the event should influence its structure, then I can see that as a valid point. But you quickly lose me at how you connect that to removing implants from the competition. How does seeing pilots putting their skills and tactics, implants and skill points, and ships and modules to amazing use diminish your enjoyment of the spectacle? Yes i would like to argue that the spectators of the event should influence its structure. i connect the implant removal by easier breaking tanks= faster fights = most likely enjoyable fights to watch. im not saying alliance tournament is boring to watch but i believe it can be even more entertaining. Originally by: Coronach If you truly believe that any of the rules presented by CCP for the tournament will lead to unsatisfying conflicts then demonstrate it quantifiably. CCP makes rules that are good, they can be even better. nothing is perfect in this world and not in EVE, there is allways room to eveolve and make things better. Originally by: Coronach Sorry, no buts about it. It is easy to succumb to the seduction of, "Lets just create this." And "Lets just create that." Why make this harder and riskier (new code = new risk) than we need to? i was pointing to coding new dev tool(s) as i believe there is no online game making company that doesnt have dev tools of somekind. Originally by: Coronach Oh, by the way Corey, when I write "you" in my arguments, I don't really mean you specifically, just anyone in general who advocates the issues I am opposing. no offence taken.
Corey Grim FinFleet Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.10.05 11:03:00 - [98] Originally by: LeMonde 1) There are devs running the event, but scanning every single character for implants would simply take too much time with the limited manpower we have. The same goes for setting standings and/or creating jump clones. The volunteers do an excellent job in helping us scan ship setups, which is about as much as we can handle. i can see that as an acceptable reason to keep implants in tournament. i hope tho that someday you will have enough manpower
Vito Parabellum Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.10.05 12:34:00 - [99] Originally by: Corey Grim Originally by: LeMonde 1) There are devs running the event, but scanning every single character for implants would simply take too much time with the limited manpower we have. The same goes for setting standings and/or creating jump clones. The volunteers do an excellent job in helping us scan ship setups, which is about as much as we can handle. i can see that as an acceptable reason to keep implants in tournament. i hope tho that someday you will have enough manpower I don't find that as an acceptable reason at all. A (not so) simple SQL query could probably list the implant count on everyone in a certain solar system where the implant count > 0, using the (probably) already existing command line framework (no client modification needed). But maybe I'm talking out of my ars. ;)
Darpz Rampage Eternal	Posted - 2006.10.05 14:37:00 - [100] any final word on ECM?

ookke	Posted - 2006.10.05 16:36:00 - [101] Originally by: LeMonde talk about 25 points instead of 21 Can you update this to the OP, if this is going to be final word on the points? What about multiple CBC/BC:s, there was no mention about multiple BC:s in your orginal OP, now i see a "only one BC" rule on OP, which one is the final version? Sorry for the many questions, but you need to have an idea about the final rules to be able to plan ahead :)
Minnow maught Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2006.10.05 16:39:00 - [102] OK perhaps a silly suggestion but : Howabout having an extra 2-5 points that an alliance team can utilise for 1 match within the whole tournament? The whole idea (i think) of using a points system is to promote different ships and setups as well as different tactics. Adding a bonus like this could add a real edgyness to the tournament ... do you play it early to get through to the next round, do you hold on to your 'joker card' till the end in the hope you get there?
FolCan Chadarris	Posted - 2006.10.05 20:40:00 - [103] Hi. Can we have a list of all the rules at present, all in one post. It's too difficult trying to work out what the rules are by reading through all 4 pages of changes and alterations. Perhaps this could be on a locked thread that only CCP rulemakes can reply to as the rules change? This would be awesome. Thanks
Coronach	Posted - 2006.10.05 20:58:00 - [104] Originally by: Corey Grim Ever heard of DEV tools ? there is no similiar module as example: cargo scanner. i thought you wouldnt keep me so stupid not to understand that. Yes, magic DEV tools. That solves everything. Demonstrate to me the existence of magic DEV tools that do everything you could ever dream of and I'll grant you the point. My point is, that I don't know what DEV tools exist, and neither do you. Using something that you do not know exists, and have no information about, as a line of argument is... well... pointless. It is meaningless and distracting conjecture. If you argue that such a tool could be created, I can not deny that, but you already know my response is that, if your asking for new code and new features, your heading in the wrong direction -- from both the risk and the manpower perspective. All of this being moot as it is, since you acknowledge that manpower is an even better reason that implant scanning is not a rule option. Originally by: Corey Grim Originally by: Coronach I am unable to make sense of this statement. You assert that I, on one hand encourage more variety in tactics, but on the other discourage them. I fail to see to what you refer. Please clarify. puuuuuhhhh ... when do you realize the point that there is "only" 5 pirate implant sets with 5 different bonuses. When EVE have pirate implant set to every thing your ship has setted atributes then it would not be restiricting tactics. ( /me wants to see pirate implant set for increasing cargo space = more cap booster charges ). Umm... nope. I still can't make sense of what you are trying to say. If you are arguing that by allowing the faction implants CCP is basically forcing everyone to use them (in order to be competitive) and therefore all will adopt the same tactics, then I almost don't know what to say. Again, did you watch the last tournament? The most exciting match (IMHO) was the semi-final between BoB and IAC. Two vastly different sets of tactics (well except for the web each other with rapier/huginn to keep at range) with pilots sporting completely different sets of implants. And, as pilots who have actually competed in the event have already posted numerous times, implants are not essential, they are just a very useful tool. You choose to scorn their assertion, I choose to credit it. Originally by: Corey Grim Yes i would like to argue that the spectators of the event should influence its structure. i connect the implant removal by easier breaking tanks= faster fights = most likely enjoyable fights to watch. im not saying alliance tournament is boring to watch but i believe it can be even more entertaining. Are you familiar with the boxer Mike Tyson? He won a lot of fights in the first round. Kind of a let down really. Conversely, have you heard of Muhammad Ali? Perhaps his famous match, the "Rumble in the Jungle" against George Foreman. His "rope-a-dope" style allowed him to tire and defeat his harder hitting opponent in the eighth round. Tyson = gank = victories that aren't memorable. Ali = tank (and gank when it was time) = victories that are unforgettable. A close match that builds to a peak turning point and then ends smoothly is what makes for the most entertaining event. Faction implants, including balanced Crystals, enable this. Originally by: Corey Grim CCP makes rules that are good, they can be even better. nothing is perfect in this world and not in EVE, there is allways room to eveolve and make things better. Unjustifiably banning an entire aspect of the game, faction implants, is neither evolutionary, nor makes things better. The tournament is evolving, and in what appears to be a good direction. No need to set it back. The game is evolving too. If you would like to see changes in the game, well I have already linked the Features and Ideas Discussions section of the forum. Regards, Coronach
Coronach	Posted - 2006.10.05 20:58:00 - [105] Originally by: Corey Grim There are many other ways to tank damage than pure boosting shield boost amount. let me explain: Crystal: this is the easiest one so i dont bother explaining it. Snake: higher speed=higher transversal=less change for your enemy to hit you, Result: not so much damage in= better tank holding. Snake is of course best used in smallish ships. A team can bring 5 stasis webifiers to the match. Including one on a ship that makes them extend farther than the starting range. Argument not accepted, Snakes do not (in the framework of the event) provide a tank comparable to Crystals. Originally by: Corey Grim Halo: lower signature radius=less change for your enemy to hit you. Result: not so much damage in= better tank holding. best used with example: vagabond. A team can bring 5 target painters. If you refer to the link for implants, you may note that a full Halo set will net you a 20% signature reduction. Even a single painter is sufficient to counter this. Then combine with stasis webifier. Argument not accepted, Halos do not provide a tank comparable to Crystals. Originally by: Corey Grim Talisman: this ones a bit harder and not so straight forward: reduction in the duration of modules requiring the Energy emission systems: example nosferatus. i agree this set aint straightly related to tank, oh but wait what do u use cap for... (okay okay someone needs cap for shooting too ). Not sure I see an argument there. There are only three classes of ships this significantly affects: battleships, certain logistics, and of course the wonderful Amarr recons. And the benefit only persists to the extent that there is cap available to be drained. While the use of nosferatu do enable a pilot to tank longer, they also serve to possibly deny his target the ability to tank or even gank as well. This leads to shorter combats, not longer ones. Talismans do not provide a tank comparable to Crystals. Originally by: Corey Grim Slave: can you tell me what +53.63% more armor is if its not tanking ? Hitpoints are a buffer, they are not a tank. Did you watch the previous tournaments? Have you witnessed a battleship attacked by five opponents? How long does it take to kill a battleship once its tank is broken, regardless of hitpoints? Under five minutes. Usually well under five minutes. Tank is entirely about your ability to repair damage -- or to resist it entirely by not being hit (such as with ECM, range & sensor dampeners, and speed & transversal). If your opponents have the capablity to cause more sustained damage than you can repair (or avoid) then your ship will be destroyed. The extra 50% hitpoints just means it takes 50% longer and briefly extends the exciting moment of tension. Argument not accepted, Slaves do not provide a tank comparable to Crystals. Originally by: Corey Grim There is no such thing as unbreakable tank tho. i was merely quoting you, we both know we speak uber tanks that makes fights boring . Actually, in the context of five versus five constrained tournament combat, there are such things as unbreakable tanks. And personally, I don't find uber tank fights boring. I am a fan of this game and appreciate it's nuances. Nuances that come into greater relief when given a long, sustained exposure. I appreciate the skill and preparation that goes into an uber tank. I think that with the rule changes already presented by LeMonde, you will see fights with amazing tanks that do not result in stalemates. The removal of a significant and interesting facet of the game, such as implants, is not required. <Sigh. More to follow. You're making me type too much! >
Corey Grim FinFleet Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.10.05 23:03:00 - [106] Coronach: I do not believe your pointless arguments have anymore anything to do with this thread purpose. your whole post is only made to "prove" me wrong, and besides you cant even do that properly. You try to use words that are "hard" to understand yet you use them wrong. Dev tools: ffs try to understand that LeMonde allready said they have way to do it but not manpower= meaning its too time consuming to scan 100+ alliances participations coz there are not enough devs. cargo/ship scanning is faster coz u can use volunteers to that. when you seem to have no clue at all how games are done do not post crap like that. If u didnt understand how implants restirict tactics i cant do nothing about that anymore i allready explained how they affect and you cant see the point, its not so straightforward. Comparing eve tournament to boxing im speakless... For Mods and LeMonde: im very sorry that this post doesnt contribute much to actual thread coz i have allready said things in my previous post what conserned me. but i still cant resist good argument (especially when i know im right).
Soren Caldari PAK	Posted - 2006.10.06 17:17:00 - [107] Edited by: Soren on 06/10/2006 17:18:12 Originally by: LeMonde A few things that need to be cleared up: 1) There are devs running the event, but scanning every single character for implants would simply take too much time with the limited manpower we have. The same goes for setting standings and/or creating jump clones. The volunteers do an excellent job in helping us scan ship setups, which is about as much as we can handle. Is this really the reason they're allowed? Couldn't you pod all characters before the fights and have them clone to the stations in the polaris region? (I assume they're there like sisi) If they have implants, tough luck. If your allowing them, and you want to allow them.. just say so, your the boss and you won't make everyone happy with either choice. If you don't really want to allow them, but it's not so big of an issue your going to deal with it, say so. Edit I'm not against implants in the tournament, just don't like the reasoning they're not allowed.Edit ☠-->-->--
Testy Mctest	Posted - 2006.10.06 18:10:00 - [108] I hope you guys are joking with the web and target painter rules. I've trained Minnie recons almost specifically with a view to enter the tourney, but that aside, the rules are ridiculous. There are much, much worse things than webbers around - crystal implants, missiles in general, and so on and so forth. So what if webbers restrict short range combat? Recons aren't exactly powerhouse tanks, and taking a recon means no HAC, etc. Yes, you have to be joking. I can't see any other reason for such a ridiculous and stupid rule. And short of swearing, I really can't express my opinions about whoever designed this ruleset. Scrapheap Challenge Forums - All the cool kids are doing it!
Mebrithiel Ju'wien Minmatar Blood Inquisition	Posted - 2006.10.06 18:43:00 - [109] Originally by: Soren Couldn't you pod all characters before the fights and have them clone to the stations in the polaris region? (I assume they're there like sisi) If they have implants, tough luck. If your allowing them, and you want to allow them.. just say so, your the boss and you won't make everyone happy with either choice. If you don't really want to allow them, but it's not so big of an issue your going to deal with it, say so. I like the idea of them being podded to lose get rid of the implants, but it's not viable due to long-term survivalists with full snakes in their heads that don't wanna lose them. Not that I'm competing, but implants don't seem to split the "men from the boys", more the gods from the mortals. ASCN proved implants aren't everything, but they do make a hell of a difference and are a risk free investment. Those investments should be put into faction bs etc. More fun that way. Mmmm... Bhaalgorn... Coming back on the implant topic, if there's a viable way, perhaps implants should be considered for removal, but at the moment, there isn't a viable way. Is there?
Guurzak Minmatar	Posted - 2006.10.06 18:50:00 - [110] # Each ship can fit only one Stasis Webifier. # Each ship can fit only one Target Painter. Um, so people who have trained for Minmatar recons can just stay home, but the other three races can use all their Ewar to full effect? Or are you going to similarly restrict dampers, TD's, ECM, and Nos?

solidshot Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2006.10.06 19:11:00 - [111] Yet again the minnies get shafted by ccp
Testy Mctest	Posted - 2006.10.06 19:12:00 - [112] TBH, why not just get rid of all forms of EWAR, and make it a skillpoint based, f1-f8 fest? Because that's what Eve is once you remove the modules that aren't guns. Which is what you're doing. Is there a reason all of the recent changes and now the alliance tournament are trying to take any semblance of interesting fights out of the game, or is it genuinely accidental? Alliance tournament my ass. More like 'who has the most SP and biggest wallet' tournament. Scrapheap Challenge Forums - All the cool kids are doing it!
FolCan Chadarris	Posted - 2006.10.06 19:36:00 - [113] Still no definitive list of rules.... As for implants, I agree that the excuse that they're allowed is because they're difficult to check is a cop out. Grow up. Very easy to fix anyways. Like someone earlier said, just give everyone a free clone at the station in the system we're going to be fighting in, and everyone can clone jump there, leaving their implants intact. Ships can then be moved, without any cargo, but give us free ammo and missiles and cap batteries etc. at the station.
Clavius XIV Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2006.10.06 19:48:00 - [114] Having a point system, and then limiting to 5 pilots per side really doesn't leave enough variety. Let there be 7-10 players max per side, and you will see a much more entertaining tourney. Also especially for the smaller ships, the T1 varients should be considerably less points.
Semkhet The Priory	Posted - 2006.10.06 20:04:00 - [115] Originally by: Testy Mctest I hope you guys are joking with the web and target painter rules. I've trained Minnie recons almost specifically with a view to enter the tourney, but that aside, the rules are ridiculous. There are much, much worse things than webbers around - crystal implants, missiles in general, and so on and so forth. So what if webbers restrict short range combat? Recons aren't exactly powerhouse tanks, and taking a recon means no HAC, etc. Yes, you have to be joking. I can't see any other reason for such a ridiculous and stupid rule. And short of swearing, I really can't express my opinions about whoever designed this ruleset. And since when you need more than one webber to freeze in place a 5-men team ? Just web the BS or CS and that's it. The HAC/Dessy/AF won't be able to move faster than their big brothers unless they want to fly out of remote shield/armor reppers/boosters range and get destroyed. Besides, you still may suddenly switch your webber at any time on a small ship to increase the damage inflicted if that's what you want. A CS/BS unwebbed for one minute wont go that far. For someone who allegedly trains Minnie recons specifically for the tournament, it's quite strange that you posted such opinion given that what counts is not how many webs you can have on your ship but how EFFECTIVE can your ship be when using its bonuses, even when using only one single mod.
Vaslav Tchitcherine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2006.10.07 07:05:00 - [116] Originally by: Clavius XIV Having a point system, and then limiting to 5 pilots per side really doesn't leave enough variety. Let there be 7-10 players max per side, and you will see a much more entertaining tourney. Absolutely right. v. jf \| won't somebody think of the pandas?
Zaethiel	Posted - 2006.10.07 07:25:00 - [117] Originally by: LeMonde 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 If no one has stated it yet i think the point system should allow the tech 1 version of each ship with some extra points to work with so that at least you could run: 1 Tier 2 BS 1 Tech 2 BC 1 tech 2 cruiser 1 tech 1 destroyer 1 tech 1 frigate 28 points. Reason #1: No one will use an interdictor but if they want to lets let them have it. by dropping the interdictor you can run a faction bs. 1 faction BS 1 command 1 Hac/ recon. (also sahould think about giving recons their own point system since all but the curse is useful now with the new rules.) 1 T2 Frig 1 none? or 2 tech 1 frigs? Also what about Tier 2 BC? Do they get their own points?
Deren Thaldrel Minmatar Black Watch Legionnaires Babylon Project	Posted - 2006.10.07 20:15:00 - [118] I would be in support of a Corporation tournament LeMonde, but I think you'd get hundreds of entrys so not sure how to cut that down to a more manageable amount.
Baun 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.10.08 00:36:00 - [119] Originally by: Sivona 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. I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. Allowing pirate implants makes the tournament a contest between the few teams that are willing to plunk down alot of isk. I would make a similiar argument about Faction BSs, but its alot less unbalancing and problematic. The tournament should be about the skill of every team that enters not just the few with the best implants. The Enemy's Gate is Down
Baun 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.10.08 00:50:00 - [120] Edited by: Baun on 08/10/2006 00:51:04 Originally by: Raem Civrie Hi. Clue. Get far. With Ultimate Skill, win. How many people possess the Ultimate Skill? There's plenty of people with Good Skill, even Extraordinary Skill, that also have money. Who also are prepared to invest time into preparation for this. This makes them more worth of winning than the Good/Extraordinarily Skilled people... who don't. It is really disingenuous to equate purchasing an expensive set of rare implants with "putting time into preparation". True "preparation" is about team builds, strategy and ship setups. The only way in which purchasing something extravagantly expensive that gives you an automatic advantage requires "time" is the time required to get the isk. This tournament is not about the skill of getting isk, it is about the skill of fighting. Since it is about one skill and not the other, advantages relating to the amount of money you have should be minimized. Faction implants and modules are the biggest potential advantage. Faction modules are not allowed, presumabl for this reason, so why should faction implants be allowed? Disallowing expensive implants in no way turns the tournament into the "hobo bumfight" that you are worried about. There are many shades of gray between the two extremes. The Enemy's Gate is Down

Mebrithiel Ju'wien Minmatar Blood Inquisition	Posted - 2006.10.08 03:56:00 - [121] Don't suppose anyone's considered the fact that ASCN's team didn't look like they needed implants?
Darpz Rampage Eternal	Posted - 2006.10.08 05:18:00 - [122] Originally by: Mebrithiel Ju'wien Don't suppose anyone's considered the fact that ASCN's team didn't look like they needed implants? prolly not needed but I would put money on they had talismans
Mebrithiel Ju'wien Minmatar Blood Inquisition	Posted - 2006.10.08 05:49:00 - [123] Originally by: Darpz Originally by: Mebrithiel Ju'wien Don't suppose anyone's considered the fact that ASCN's team didn't look like they needed implants? prolly not needed but I would put money on they had talismans I'd have thought Snakes or Slaves rather than talismans tbh. All out damage? Need speed and armor to survive more than nos.
Captain Rickdick Bad Karma.	Posted - 2006.10.08 13:06:00 - [124] Quote: Additionally, we are changing to a points-based system, where teams have 21 points to select a team setup. I quite like this idea iam not 100% on all the costs, e.g. Battleships teir 1 & 2 should cost the same there is no doubt there can be a arguement (with something else iam about to add) that all the races teir 1 & 2 could be the best in this tourney. it is a very tight points value, now iam certainly not going to agree with all the people that just want more points, the 21 for me forces you to make a choice on number of pilots you take to the table. Iam not sure this will work to well as things currently stand to take a take five pilots you really have to use a mumber of frigs or tech 1 ships, i just cant see a tech1 ships and frigs being able to swarm 2 or 3 power house ships. I have a suggestion on this if LeMonde your intent is to make peoplel choose how many pilots to take (which i do like) how about the tech 1 & 2 frigs cap them at max 5 in a team but add the rule "does not count towards the number of pilots in your team". This would create more intersting choices on picking the number of pilots on your team, once again if the intent was to force people to make a difficult descison on the number of people on the team. Quote: On the issue of ECM, I actually think it's a pretty good idea allowing one or more ECM module per ship. Discuss. Omg iam so glad you said you said this its the only reason you have even got me to post! Ok first the use of ECM, i feel this could go along well with the makeing a descison on the number of pilots you take ie maybe a swarm (with or with out my addtional pilot rule) with a ECM ship could start to control 3 power houses and make the tech 1 & 2 able to get involved more. My idea to included ECM would be to in corporate it into the points values when building your team. The difficult thing will be to not make them a auto included. You could pay a point for each module you wanted to included or pay a set amount of points to make a ship a ECM boat. Maybe +3 points to make a ship a ecm boat? or Do it by class +3 points for a BS and Tech 2 then maybe +2 for tech 1 ships. Well thats me done hope some of this makes you think, iam excited about the changes you propose, nice change of tactics for everyone and see more intersting combos on the battle field. Rick****
Darpz Rampage Eternal	Posted - 2006.10.09 00:48:00 - [125] Originally by: Mebrithiel Ju'wien Originally by: Darpz Originally by: Mebrithiel Ju'wien Don't suppose anyone's considered the fact that ASCN's team didn't look like they needed implants? prolly not needed but I would put money on they had talismans I'd have thought Snakes or Slaves rather than talismans tbh. All out damage? Need speed and armor to survive more than nos. no there whole strat was Armor tanking thru remote regen. Slaves do nothing for that since it just dealys the enevidable. Talismans let you move more Cap around quicker thru your team, and once your in nos range takes more cap from the other team
Ron LaForge Gallente Momentum.	Posted - 2006.10.10 07:59:00 - [126] Guys, if you are going to use a points system, why the heck limit the number of ships? It rather defeats the object in my opinion. If a team wants to use a goonswarm tactic of 21 frigs, why not? The whole point of points is the tactical setup possibility which kinda goes to pot if you are limited in the number of ships. Ron. Every long journey begins with just one small step..
Silvero Gallente Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.10 23:12:00 - [127] Edited by: Silvero on 10/10/2006 23:12:24 Like the point system but only 24 ? seemes a little low, i think 30 points and use as many you want of the 7 char you have in your team. And whatever modules you want, in any ship you may choose. It's gonna be equal for all anyway. However i don't like LeMode's trying to sneak in a handicap system here. "Ships 1. Each team has 24 points to select thier ships. Additionally, a team may use four additional points in a single match its choise during the whole tournament." What is that about ?
jamesw Omniscient Order	Posted - 2006.10.10 23:54:00 - [128] Originally by: Silvero "1. Each team has 24 points to select thier ships. Additionally, a team may use four additional points in a single match its choise during the whole tournament." What is that about ? I love this idea, where teams can choose one match to play their "trump card", so to speak. For one match in the entire tournament, a team can allocate 28 points instead of 24. You see this sort of thing in a lot of other tournaments, where teams get this kind of "once-per-tournament" option. It can add a really nice bit of spice, when you see underdogs pull out their "wild card" at a crucial moment and come out on top. In tournament terms, this might mean that for the one match only, you could field 2 x t2 cruisers instead of your regular setup of 1 t2 cruiser and 1 t2 frigate. When do you go for the advantage?? Do you take it early on, in an attempt to ensure your alliance a spot in the finals? Do you hold back, and save it for the grand final in the hope of a decisive advantige, possibly assuring a tournament win?? Sounds like a fun decision to me! -- NEW Vid: Domi For the Win!
Silvero Gallente Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.11 10:40:00 - [129] Ok Jamesw so in the next worldcup we can see FIFA declaring that all teams might choise an additional player(not dual keepers doh) in one game during the tournament. Sounds fine by me, after all im sick of seeing Brazil, Germany, France, Italy and does nations beeing so much better then the rest. Why should they always win, just because they are better. With these new rules even "Island" might make it to the finals, because of thier talent at beeing not very highly ranked. I think all teams should enter with the same conditions, this new ruls is noting else then a hidden handicap system. Cleverly concealed in what might give a false sense of fairness, but it really isn't. my 2 isk
jamesw Omniscient Order	Posted - 2006.10.11 11:46:00 - [130] NEWS FLASH You have to win more than one match to win the tournament. -- NEW Vid: Domi For the Win!

TWD TAOSP Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.11 15:01:00 - [131] 1) People whined about their inability to change their setups and/or find a counter to webs/painters so a rule of only 1 web and target painter is added. 2) People thought it was a glorious idea to add ECM to turn it into a game of poker, i.e. 30% luck, 70% skill. 3) 4 points extra for a single match? After our alliance has won the tournament two times, there is a possibility that people will use the 4 extra points in every match against us. This means we'll be at a disadvantage in every match. If the current rules stay, I'm not interested in joining this time.
Silvero Gallente Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.11 15:34:00 - [132] Edited by: Silvero on 11/10/2006 15:34:55 Originally by: jamesw NEWS FLASH You have to win more than one match to win the tournament. REALITY CHECK It is true that you have to win more then one match to secure the tournament. However it is only gonna take ONE match to kick you out.
Kehmor Caldari PAK	Posted - 2006.10.11 17:45:00 - [133] Originally by: jamesw Originally by: Silvero "1. Each team has 24 points to select thier ships. Additionally, a team may use four additional points in a single match its choise during the whole tournament." What is that about ? I love this idea, where teams can choose one match to play their "trump card", so to speak. For one match in the entire tournament, a team can allocate 28 points instead of 24. You see this sort of thing in a lot of other tournaments, where teams get this kind of "once-per-tournament" option. It can add a really nice bit of spice, when you see underdogs pull out their "wild card" at a crucial moment and come out on top. In tournament terms, this might mean that for the one match only, you could field 2 x t2 cruisers instead of your regular setup of 1 t2 cruiser and 1 t2 frigate. When do you go for the advantage?? Do you take it early on, in an attempt to ensure your alliance a spot in the finals? Do you hold back, and save it for the grand final in the hope of a decisive advantige, possibly assuring a tournament win?? Sounds like a fun decision to me! Crap idea tbh. The "good" teams will be obligated to hold on to their points untill the final. The crap teams will either go out early, or use their 4 pts to put out a better team, before losing in the final.
ookke	Posted - 2006.10.11 17:47:00 - [134] I find the ECM randomness, the bob handicap and the huginn/rapier nerf very disappointing. I don't see any reason why people can't drop a big part of their dps by putting in a rapier instead of a damage dealer hac. I don't see any reason why people instead should be able to field armortanked shieldtank ships with mids full of ECM to max out the randomness(rattlesnake with 5x ecm + armortank anyone? ). Being able to field an extra 4 points worth of ships against bob in the qualifiers is also funny :p BoB winning twice in the tournament is of course a disappointment for some people, but maybe instead of nerfing the "skill" factor in the tournament you should look into stuff that has repeatedly been called overpowered, eg. crystal implants. If bob wins for a third time in a row then meh... maybe they deserve it? All i can do is hope is that the last years top-16 alliances votes out these crazy rule suggestions =/

LeMonde	Posted - 2006.10.11 18:47:00 - [135] The rules are still not decided 100%, and most of these issues will be voted upon in the coming meeting. I will contact the alliances next week regarding that. I have some good news aswell. Tuxford has agreed to change crystal implants to fall in line with Slave implants. After Kali they will give a shield hitpoint bonus instead of a shield boost bonus.

Tyrrax Thorrk Amarr Umbra Congregatio Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.10.11 22:10:00 - [136] That's good, please point out to him that they should provide less % boost than slave set does, due to natural recharge rate http://eve.klaki.net/
Karen Okaeshi	Posted - 2006.10.11 23:10:00 - [137] Tuxford=Pottsey

Eldo Davip Forum Moderator Interstellar Services Department	Posted - 2006.10.12 02:16:00 - [138] Originally by: Karen Okaeshi Tuxford=Pottsey Nope. If Tux was Pottsey then it would have never been a shield boost bonus. ___ Email Us (Report a bad post) \| Forum Rules - Read 'em! \| Website

Sergio Ling Standard Operations Building Services Maelstrom Alliance	Posted - 2006.10.12 08:21:00 - [139] Originally by: LeMonde The rules are still not decided 100%, and most of these issues will be voted upon in the coming meeting. I will contact the alliances next week regarding that. I have some good news aswell. Tuxford has agreed to change crystal implants to fall in line with Slave implants. After Kali they will give a shield hitpoint bonus instead of a shield boost bonus. i just bought a set. damn him Originally by: Oveur Internally dismissed as carebear whine, we quietly moved our Kestrels to another system.
Alex Harumichi Gallente Gradient Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2006.10.12 08:30:00 - [140] Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 12/10/2006 08:30:27 Have to say that these rules sound a lot more interesting than before, and should also result in more interesting fights -- and ones that are closer to "real" pvp.

Hehulk FATAL REVELATIONS Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.10.12 09:58:00 - [141] Originally by: LeMonde The rules are still not decided 100%, and most of these issues will be voted upon in the coming meeting. I will contact the alliances next week regarding that. I have some good news aswell. Tuxford has agreed to change crystal implants to fall in line with Slave implants. After Kali they will give a shield hitpoint bonus instead of a shield boost bonus. I was about to go buy a set for my alt, cheers for the warning ---------- Please choose one signature image, as per the forum rules. - Teblin
fear factor Gallente DarkSide Inc	Posted - 2006.10.12 10:17:00 - [142] Edited by: fear factor on 12/10/2006 10:18:22 Sounds like it is gong to be a good tournament 1 question is corps going to be involed this if so how mush would the fee be
without	Posted - 2006.10.12 10:59:00 - [143] Edited by: without on 12/10/2006 11:00:41 tell tuxford to also put in a negative shield recharge bonous to the crystal implants, or its going to effect the whole passive tank thing so a full high grade crystal set currently gives about +50% to boost amount, and in the huture it will give about +50% to shield HP but at the same time it should give -33% to shield recharge [to keep the passive tanks as they are currently] also if you are letting implants in, please please please let possing be part of the game!!!!!!!!!!!! that way if you want to risk 2bil in implants then you need to take the risk off loosing them!!! and if you warp out in your pod, your side looses!! would sure make it much more fun!!
Gragnor Order of the Arrow	Posted - 2006.10.12 11:41:00 - [144] I'll probably get flamed for this but what the hell. NO module rules. Anything goes in the 30km ring. Keep the 21 point limit; any number of ships permitted (imagine a swarm of t1 friggies taking on 5 ships and tell me you will all love to see what happens, I know I would); no implants as they reflect wealth not skill. Here's the one rule that will upset everyone. A limit on skill points, just like ship points. That is, an expert like STAVROS, having to take four noobs into a fight. Now that's a real test of skill that I would love to see. The problem is how would you make sure genuine noobs got picked up and not alt accounts.
Dalaq Minmatar Servant's of order	Posted - 2006.10.12 12:17:00 - [145] With regards to corps entering the tournament I think it would be a good idea to have a seperate tournament only for corps that are not part of an alliance. Also as some base rules: 1. No Faction Implants 2. No Faction ships or mods 3. Anything else goes Which means a basically level playing field for the less isk flush among us :) Comments?
DrAtomic Polytope Ghosts of Retribution	Posted - 2006.10.12 12:56:00 - [146] Originally by: LeMonde 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 I'd say YES allow corporations to participate, disallow implants alltogether, allow use of all modules except for faction modules, allow corps to name 10 pilots (5 spare/subs), require big entry fee which is refunded if the team shows on all of it's matches. Organize a qualifier tourny for corps if the number of corps willing to participate gets huge. Create an Arena area on SiSi where corps can hold their inner corps tournies to select their pilots. That would make the tourny a factual representation of EvE pvp whilst keeping the costs reasonable and make it accesable to all that are willing to participate. IF the any module rule presents a problem then that is a balance problem within the game and should be fixed accordingly (ie rock, paper, siccors is broken then), it makes no sense to have a tourny where you dont allow to use whatever you deem smart. ----------------------------------------------- The BIG Lottery
DrAtomic Polytope Ghosts of Retribution	Posted - 2006.10.12 13:10:00 - [147] Originally by: Raem Civrie Technical difficulties make it hard to ban implants. It's apparently hard to scan for them and time consuming. As in, delay each match 40 minutes time consuming. 1. Create an alliance Arena tourny station. 2. Create jump clone facility at Arena area. 3. Create a jump clone for all the participating pilots. 4. Force the pilots to jumpclone in when tourny starts. 5. Have GMs move their hardware to that station (ships, modules, the lot). 6. Allow one team contact to have additional stuff moved once per day in order to adopt team strategy and stuff or allow some other sort of mechanism (escrow to GM?) that will allow restocking and adding other stuff. Buh bye implants, all done with current game mechanics. ----------------------------------------------- The BIG Lottery
DrAtomic Polytope Ghosts of Retribution	Posted - 2006.10.12 13:33:00 - [148] Originally by: LeMonde A few things that need to be cleared up: 1) There are devs running the event, but scanning every single character for implants would simply take too much time with the limited manpower we have. The same goes for setting standings and/or creating jump clones. The volunteers do an excellent job in helping us scan ship setups, which is about as much as we can handle. Simple solution... Create an Pilot Scanner module that yields information such as total # of SP and implants. Give those to the volunteers doing the scans; voila problem solved. Ow and hmmm might want to seed the module into game as well; could be very usefull ransoming tool for pirates. ----------------------------------------------- The BIG Lottery
Slash Harnet Minmatar Industrial Services INC	Posted - 2006.10.12 20:17:00 - [149] Faction BS 12pts. BS 10pts. Tech II BC 10pts. BC 8pts. Tech II Cruiser 7pts. Cruiser 6pts. Tech II Frig 4pts. Tech II Destroyer 4pts. Frig 2pts. Destroyer 1pt. Shuttle 20pts. (Don't be an idiot) High Grade Implant 1pt. Low Grade Implant .5pts (oh teh nos! a decimal) 50pts. Total 1 BS Limit 1 BC Limit 1 of the same type of cruiser 1 ECM PER TEAM 8 players per team with only 5 in combat at any time Treat implants like doping, random screening through out the tournament. You get caught you get removed. Give the interdictors a purpose, allow podding but let pods warp away. Have a raffle so 2 corps can enter the tourney. Oh, and Give BoB a place in the single elimination bracket. It's stupid to have teams hardley try cause they are afraid to lose all their stuff. I assume nothing will be done with rigs or boosters since they will be so new.
Helganstandt Finis Lumen Muffins of Mayhem	Posted - 2006.10.12 22:00:00 - [150] I like the way it is now. With 24 pts, and the current system, you could field a tier 1 BS, a command ship, and a t2 cruiser. And there are several other varieties, but this would make for some very interesting fights, and not break the wallets of some of the poorer alliances opens her wallet and watches the moths fly out. And hey, some of us smaller guys might even win a few rounds without having to dish out billions. I'd really prefer that implants be banned altogether though for this tournament. ________________________________

BhallSpawn	Posted - 2006.10.12 22:27:00 - [151] "I have some good news aswell. Tuxford has agreed to change crystal implants to fall in line with Slave implants. After Kali they will give a shield hitpoint bonus instead of a shield boost bonus." I nominate this as the dumbest statement ever How is this good news exactly? a huge nerf. oh wonderful
ArtemisEntreri Turbulent	Posted - 2006.10.12 23:09:00 - [152] Originally by: BhallSpawn "I have some good news aswell. Tuxford has agreed to change crystal implants to fall in line with Slave implants. After Kali they will give a shield hitpoint bonus instead of a shield boost bonus." I nominate this as the dumbest statement ever How is this good news exactly? a huge nerf. oh wonderful It's good news for shield/armor balance
Sauron Starcrusher Minmatar Pelennor Swarm Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2006.10.13 00:03:00 - [153] I'm not an anti-ECM person. I usually make sure there is at leas one ECM ship in my gang when we roll. But that stuff has NO place in a tournament, where the main theme is to see who has more skill and better tactics in an all-out fight. BOOOOO ECM in the tourny!!!! [url=http://profile.xfire.com/glychcrash][/url]
Crimsonjade Forsaken Empire	Posted - 2006.10.13 00:45:00 - [154] Originally by: LeMonde 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 i love this idea we arnt in a allaince and really will not waste the isk just to make one for a event touch me... you wanna ......
Fred 104 New Justice	Posted - 2006.10.13 01:42:00 - [155] Originally by: ArtemisEntreri Originally by: BhallSpawn "I have some good news aswell. Tuxford has agreed to change crystal implants to fall in line with Slave implants. After Kali they will give a shield hitpoint bonus instead of a shield boost bonus." I nominate this as the dumbest statement ever How is this good news exactly? a huge nerf. oh wonderful It's good news for shield/armor balance Ferox passive tanks are going to be insane.
Audri Fisher Caldari The Keep THE R0CK	Posted - 2006.10.13 02:31:00 - [156] Originally by: Fred 104 Originally by: ArtemisEntreri Originally by: BhallSpawn "I have some good news aswell. Tuxford has agreed to change crystal implants to fall in line with Slave implants. After Kali they will give a shield hitpoint bonus instead of a shield boost bonus." I nominate this as the dumbest statement ever How is this good news exactly? a huge nerf. oh wonderful It's good news for shield/armor balance Ferox passive tanks are going to be insane. YARR!!!
Lenid Kalkin Ars Caelestis Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.10.13 08:16:00 - [157] One observation and one suggestion. Observation: Adding in ECM may actaully encourage teams to vary their setups more across matches. If your main damage dealer is always (insert faction BS here) then you'll be going up against teh exact racial jammer every time. By varying your line-up you force the other side to guess on racials or fit multi-specs. Suggestion: Extend the "No warping" rule to pods as well and allow pod kills. Teams can fit whatever implants they want, but it's a fight to the death, not a fight to the pod. Never bring what you can't afford to lose. Cardinal rule of PVP.
Pottsey Gallente Acme Shipping Inc	Posted - 2006.10.13 08:30:00 - [158] Edited by: Pottsey on 13/10/2006 08:30:19 ôI nominate this as the dumbest statement ever How is this good news exactly? a huge nerf. oh wonderfulö Changing a buff from a powerful buff to a super power buff letting you hit well over 200+ HP/s regen with no cap drain is not a nerf. Passive tanks FTW. Forget about the Ferox this effects Gallante passive tanks even more. I will be able to get capital class hitpoints on my Domi way more then any Ferox. Passive shield tanking guide click here
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2006.10.13 09:37:00 - [159] Edited by: Akita T on 13/10/2006 09:43:11 How about something more... interesting ? At LEAST for the CORP tournament, if held. 1. T1 and T2 stuff only. No officer, no faction. That includes ships, modules, ammo and implants. 2. Everything else goes. No limitations on what you can or cannot fit other than that specified in point 1. Make it like REAL PvP. 3. Arena has a center beacon. Each team is also given a 100-km BM in the OPPOSITE direction of starting point from the center beacon. People start 300km away from center beacon. Any ship getting more than 100km away from center beacon gets destroyed. Pods not. Ships in starting area also immune to this "destruction" effect. 4. Podding allowed. Pods can warp out of the arena and get REPLACEMENT ships, if they so wish and are able to. Replacement ships must be fully fitted and placed in the "starting point" of each team. They count towards "max total points" used. Each PILOTED ship in the starting areas gets auto-warped to 15km of center beacon within 30 seconds if pilot does not manually warp out of start area before that. Pods get warped in 60 seconds. ___ About total allowable points, and how much for each ship, well, no idea. But certainly make PODS (i.e. pilots) worth at least as much as 3 frigs. That makes scram+web or even SBs "almost a must" for the setups VICTORY CONDITIONS There should be a TIME limit instead of a "must kill all opponents' ships". Victory decided either when enemy lost all ships or all pilots (clear winner), otherwise winner decided by POINTS KILLED. __ Always question everything. Including yourself.
Popsikle Caffeine Commodities Company Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2006.10.13 18:03:00 - [160] Regardless if BoB doesnt like it, ECM is a big part of small gang PvP in eve. This is a tourney for small gangs, and the previous no ECM rules eliminated one of the major parts of PvP. Yes, the modules are chance based, but it still takes a bit of know-how and exp to and tactics to jam the right targets. Kudos on allowing ECM, the tourney should be based on PvP not the big alliances pipe dreams. I would have to agree with someone who posted above me about the pod rule. If you allow implants, you should allow podding ;) Oh, and way to limit the minmatar force recon ships and none of the other force recons. To many limititions and the tourney starts to move from PvP to simulated PvP. =( __________________________________________ -= We Fly for our people =- -= I fly for Blood =-

ookke	Posted - 2006.10.14 18:33:00 - [161] Originally by: Popsikle Regardless if BoB doesnt like it, ECM is a big part of small gang PvP in eve. This is a tourney for small gangs, and the previous no ECM rules eliminated one of the major parts of PvP. Yes, the modules are chance based, but it still takes a bit of know-how and exp to and tactics to jam the right targets. Kudos on allowing ECM, the tourney should be based on PvP not the big alliances pipe dreams. I would have to agree with someone who posted above me about the pod rule. If you allow implants, you should allow podding ;) Oh, and way to limit the minmatar force recon ships and none of the other force recons. To many limititions and the tourney starts to move from PvP to simulated PvP. =( I have always thought of the tournament as semi-artificial pvp where normal pvp annoyances like logofski, stabs, blobbing/bad numbers and ecm whoring have been removed, and it's down to piloting skill, tactics, teamwork and setups. If you bring in ECM you might aswell allow the teams to hop safespots and use cov ops and dictors to try to get a fight :p Some replies have stated that ECM would make the tournament more interesting, but i really doubt that. Keep in mind that you as a spectator will be watching it in third person, and the only thing you will see is if ships are getting damage or not(and the usual nos, remote reps etc. effects). There are no visual effects for ECM, just boring moments of silence and nothing happening(and the commentators trying to figure out wtf is going on :p) Oh, and about podding. I don't think podding belongs to the spirit of the tournament, as it's quite humiliating and doesn't really benefit anyone, just makes the implant resellers rich and discourages more alliances from joining.
maGz The Priory Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.10.14 19:34:00 - [162] Originally by: LeMonde I have some good news aswell. Tuxford has agreed to change crystal implants to fall in line with Slave implants. After Kali they will give a shield hitpoint bonus instead of a shield boost bonus. Sorry but you're an idiot if you think that is going to solve anything... Now I can't be arsed to do the numbers, but Rattlesnake + revised Crystal-set = ****loads of shields. I know Tuxford wants to prolong battle, but a direct conversion to shield hp instead of shield boost is bad. And if you had any clue you would realise this... ____________ The Priory Killboard
Zarch AlDain Friends of Everyone	Posted - 2006.10.15 21:49:00 - [163] Originally by: Pottsey Edited by: Pottsey on 13/10/2006 08:30:19 ôI nominate this as the dumbest statement ever How is this good news exactly? a huge nerf. oh wonderfulö Changing a buff from a powerful buff to a super power buff letting you hit well over 200+ HP/s regen with no cap drain is not a nerf. Passive tanks FTW. Forget about the Ferox this effects Gallante passive tanks even more. I will be able to get capital class hitpoints on my Domi way more then any Ferox. Yeeh, well I'm a bit narked as I am most of the way through getting a crystal set for my main and it's gonna be a damn sight less useful soon :( Zarch AlDain
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.10.16 13:47:00 - [164] Edited by: James Lyrus on 16/10/2006 13:50:05 Hmm, I must say I rather like these. Points limits, I'm not really concerned about - after all, that's a level playing field. I _am_ concerned about the pirate implants (again). They're a major advantage, and there's no risk to using them. Or even a points cost. I don't mind a tournament that's challenging to enter, but the team with 10bn of faction implants has a major advantage, and no drawbacks to doing so. Personally, I'd prefer: Points buy. No restriction on ships/pilots. (Although maybe limit to one of each ship, e.g. only one huginn). Any mod up to T2. (T1, Named, T2) No Pirate implants. Just to make it easy, say no implants, and pod everyone before the fight starts. Or limit it to if you warp, even your pod, you die, such that there's _some_ risk to using these horrendously powerful implants ... and that's about it. I dislike the painter/webber restriction. IMO that's only necessary if you're also limiting other forms of ewar - ECMs counter someone webbing you quite nicely.
Avernus Gallente Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2006.10.16 15:45:00 - [165] Get rid of implants. It seems to be a rather heavy unequalizer in truth and is one of the harder requirements for many alliances to meet if they want to be competitive with the tournament favorites. PS. or is podding allowed? I see no mention that it isn't at this point. Nothing in life is quite so sweet as the taste of payback.
Malicious Wraith The Dark Side of the Moon	Posted - 2006.10.17 17:33:00 - [166] A nighthawk is going to have an ubreakable passive tank ----------------------------------------
Theoraden Dark Cartel	Posted - 2006.10.21 05:43:00 - [167] 21 points is far to low, haven't read the thread, but if I wanted a Tier 3 BS and a Command Ship, Bam, I have 2 points left ..... STUPID --- I have a Biatch called res0
Theoraden Dark Cartel	Posted - 2006.10.21 05:49:00 - [168] Its an alliance tournament. 1 Bill down payment on the competition, Alliances are supposed to be rich. If you come to this tournament to compete, you come with the equipment to allow you to win. In this case its the implants. Implants to stay. --- I have a Biatch called res0
ookke Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2006.10.21 16:31:00 - [169] Originally by: Theoraden 21 points is far to low, haven't read the thread, but if I wanted a Tier 3 BS and a Command Ship, Bam, I have 2 points left ..... STUPID Maybe you should check the rules.pdf atleast. Atm it says 24 points, but the final point amount will be decided on the end of this month.
ookke Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2006.10.25 06:10:00 - [170] The recent nerfs to ECM and t2 ammo on the current Test Server patch bring a lot of sense to these rules. Has it been confirmed that the tournament will be played on Kali1, and will tier2 BC:s belong to the same point class with the tier1 ones?


LeMonde	Posted - 2006.10.26 03:19:00 - [171] Tier two battlecruisers are in the same group as tier 1 battlecruisers, yes. We may have to take a look at it and balance a bit (which is going to happen at the meeting next Sunday). Representatives from all top sixteen team last time have been invited to the meeting, and there we will discuss and vote upon all of the major issues.

Trey Pator	Posted - 2006.10.29 22:26:00 - [172] Hello guys a quick post about the points system its great, however the "optional"4 point bonus that can be used at any time seems unfair to me as the Bob representative pointed out. It gives the stronger teams few options about when to use it, ie they cant not until the last match. I submit this is somewhat unfair. I suggest something different. In keeping with the previous tournament, the first round of group play was distinct from the single elimination of later rounds. I suggest giving a team a total points of (base points per match 24) * (number of rounds 4) +( bonus points 4) and a team can enter anywhere from say 22 -28 points into a match in the qualifiers. In the finals brackets perhaps teams should be allowed the same number of points slightly adjusted perhaps 25 total instead of 24. I think this will allow everyone more options and make for some interesting matches in the qualifiers while preserving a balance in the finals.
ookke Art of War Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2006.10.31 10:11:00 - [173] so, when will we see the final rules? :) Would be nice to see the rules before signups start.
FraXy Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.11.01 00:45:00 - [174] When will the final rules be set. Would be great to know what ships a team can take into a match ASAP. This is my lazy attempt to make an uber-signature, please go away!
FraXy Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.11.01 02:06:00 - [175] Final Rules Linkage Final Rules released, enjoy. This is my lazy attempt to make an uber-signature, please go away!
ookke Art of War Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2006.11.01 09:47:00 - [176] From the points table: Tier1 BC - 7 points T1 Tier1 BC - 6 points Hmm?

LeMonde	Posted - 2006.11.01 22:08:00 - [177] Originally by: ookke From the points table: Tier1 BC - 7 points T1 Tier1 BC - 6 points Hmm? Ignore the second one, have to change it

The Anointed Caldari KR0M The Red Skull	Posted - 2006.11.03 00:08:00 - [178] Originally by: LeMonde The rules are still not decided 100%, and most of these issues will be voted upon in the coming meeting. I will contact the alliances next week regarding that. I have some good news aswell. Tuxford has agreed to change crystal implants to fall in line with Slave implants. After Kali they will give a shield hitpoint bonus instead of a shield boost bonus. sorry for the expletives then, but 'I want my ******* money back'. I'm all for balance in the game, but thats a massive change, completely altering something that I spent a lot of isk on, and tbh thats a bit harsh. I didnt waste my time saving for them so that i could get a bonus to sheild hp. /end rant
The Anointed Caldari KR0M The Red Skull	Posted - 2006.11.03 00:16:00 - [179] Edited by: The Anointed on 03/11/2006 00:17:27 Originally by: ArtemisEntreri Originally by: BhallSpawn "I have some good news aswell. Tuxford has agreed to change crystal implants to fall in line with Slave implants. After Kali they will give a shield hitpoint bonus instead of a shield boost bonus." I nominate this as the dumbest statement ever How is this good news exactly? a huge nerf. oh wonderful It's good news for shield/armor balance I nominate this also for dumbest statement ever as well. When will people realise that sheild and armour tanking are totally different things, and should be treated as such. would you rather we just had 1 rep that could be put in either mid or low slots? Sheild = Low Sustainability/High Boost/Quick Rep Armour = High Sustainability/High Boost/Slow Rep So then for pirate implants you'd think that for armour, you'd want an increase on hp, so as to give the reps long enough to kick in and do what they are good at. For sheilds you'd want an increase in boost so that they can quickly repair large amounts of hp for a short time. Now, not to take this thread further off topic, but it annoys me that because of the constant whining of certain people, ccp are actually going to alter something in game, for the sake of a bloody tournament. I would type what I really wanted to say, but it would come out as a bunch of *********, and make no sense. Well i want the oportunity to only engage gangs working on the same point system as I am when im playing the game, and if this is anyhting to go buy, if i whine enough about it, I'll get a completely stupid decision in my favour! Yip ***** heee
The Anointed Caldari KR0M The Red Skull	Posted - 2006.11.03 00:44:00 - [180] 3 posts in quick succession, must be trying for a record or soemthing. I have an idea, lets instance the whole thing, 64 teams, competing in 64 instances, so that every single one of them can either loose to npc's, or win. Cause games are fun when everyone wins arent they? Although even if they fight npc's, and you make it favour them, win/loose or draw, they will still be moaning about something. My last post in this thread is simply to say, any decision to change an item in the game for the sake of this tourny will be one of the worst ones I have witnessed in eve. Ban them, and spend time scanning peoples pods, delay the tourney so that the game can stay unchanged. I personally think that nos ships like the bhallgorn are unbalanced at that range, so shall we reduce their nos range? or give them a mining yeild bonus instead? sounds good? wow is that way ladies and gents I hear they have instanced content so you can all win ------>

res0nance Dark Cartel	Posted - 2006.11.03 02:28:00 - [181] Originally by: The Anointed wow is that way ladies and gents I hear they have instanced content so you can all win ------> Mmmm WoW Where abouts are the signups? Still under construction, or have I missed the link somewhere?
Theoraden Dark Cartel	Posted - 2006.11.03 03:56:00 - [182] My oh my, the toys have been thrown from the cot ^^ The change on crystal implants is not because of the tournament, its because they are overpowered compared to other pirate sets. This was highlighted in the last tourney and in other areas of pvp. --- I have a Biatch called res0
ookke	Posted - 2006.11.04 21:42:00 - [183] What about the prizes, have they been mentioned at all yet?
The Anointed Caldari KR0M The Red Skull	Posted - 2006.11.05 20:18:00 - [184] Originally by: Theoraden My oh my, the toys have been thrown from the cot ^^ The change on crystal implants is not because of the tournament, its because they are overpowered compared to other pirate sets. This was highlighted in the last tourney and in other areas of pvp. I personally think that both the +hp and the +boost sets fit well into the balance of the game, and in certain situations would take +hp to armour over boost to sheilds, but to have a sheild implant set give a boost to hp, I personally do not beleive to be inline with the way I perceive the different defensive options to be balanced. Of course it is the way in which I perceive the +'ve and -'ve's of each choice. So natuarally others will have other perceptions. Anyway I have more than one set of toys, so throwing them around doesnt hurt anyway.
Trey Pator	Posted - 2006.11.06 17:13:00 - [185] Hi LeMonde, a few questions. When do the signups end? Where do we go to sign up(URL, or in game)? What are the point values of Battlecruisers, Please be specific. Are painters, and webbers still restricted? What about faction cruisers? Considering them equal to t1 cruisers on the points scale will unbalance it. I can already see the faction cruiser manipulators eager to exploit this oversight.


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