Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
|
LeMonde
|
Posted - 2006.10.07 16:29:00 -
[1]
We now have a near-complete set of rules for the third alliance tournament. Please remember that the list is NOT complete and there are still many issues to be decided upon.
Third Alliance Tournament - Rules (PFD)
Rules marked in red have not been decided upon, the rest are final.
On October 29th we will have a meeting with reps from each of the top 16 alliances from the last tournament. A total of 17 votes will be cast (one from CCP) on each issue and we will decide from there. Sign-ups will start three days later, on November 1st.
The top sixteen alliances from last time have priority when it comes to signing up. The sign-ups will last for 10 days, and on October 12th we will announce pairings + exact times.
|
|
Hakera
Anari Higard
|
Posted - 2006.10.07 16:46:00 -
[2]
brave allowing ecm and T2 ammo.
roll on the null/javelin war :p
certaintly ensured to make fights very fast anyway.
|
Darpz
Rampage Eternal
|
Posted - 2006.10.07 17:56:00 -
[3]
so guys Scorpian Eos Rook?
|
Valrandir
Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2006.10.07 18:52:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Valrandir on 07/10/2006 18:52:31 This third tournament will be quite different from the two others
-------------------------------- This has surpassed the Yarrdware specification and has been dubbed Uberware.
|
Siri Blue
Gallente Duvolle Laboratories Blue Division
|
Posted - 2006.10.07 18:58:00 -
[5]
Originally by: LeMonde We now have a near-complete set of rules for the third alliance tournament. Please remember that the list is NOT complete and there are still many issues to be decided upon.
Third Alliance Tournament - Rules (PFD)
Rules marked in red have not been decided upon, the rest are final.
On October 29th we will have a meeting with reps from each of the top 16 alliances from the last tournament. A total of 17 votes will be cast (one from CCP) on each issue and we will decide from there. Sign-ups will start three days later, on November 1st.
The top sixteen alliances from last time have priority when it comes to signing up. The sign-ups will last for 10 days, and on October 12th we will announce pairings + exact times.
October 12th? You mean November or December??
|
|
LeMonde
|
Posted - 2006.10.07 19:04:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Siri Blue
Originally by: LeMonde We now have a near-complete set of rules for the third alliance tournament. Please remember that the list is NOT complete and there are still many issues to be decided upon.
Third Alliance Tournament - Rules (PFD)
Rules marked in red have not been decided upon, the rest are final.
On October 29th we will have a meeting with reps from each of the top 16 alliances from the last tournament. A total of 17 votes will be cast (one from CCP) on each issue and we will decide from there. Sign-ups will start three days later, on November 1st.
The top sixteen alliances from last time have priority when it comes to signing up. The sign-ups will last for 10 days, and on October 12th we will announce pairings + exact times.
October 12th? You mean November or December??
November, fixed
|
|
Siri Blue
Gallente Duvolle Laboratories Blue Division
|
Posted - 2006.10.07 19:07:00 -
[7]
Hm, the purpose of a point system is to increase diversity in the different fights...sooo...limiting the number of pilots to 5 would appear to be a bad idea...
|
Trevedian
Amarr KR0M The Red Skull
|
Posted - 2006.10.07 21:58:00 -
[8]
Sweet, I lub it...
Sex0r > you're bounty turns me on.. you seem like the kind of amarrian to dominate me
|
Kendar
Gallente 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2006.10.07 22:13:00 -
[9]
PFD ?
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2006.10.07 22:44:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Baun on 07/10/2006 22:46:43 I think that faction modules, as per the last tournament, should not be allowed and further that pirate implants should not be allowed.
Anything that can make the competition more skill based instead of isk based is, in my opinion preferable. The early rounds will be completely dominated by the alliances that spend the most isk on implants and modules.
If the aim of the competition is to have the skill of the few alliances that spend tons and tons of isk determine who wins then the current rules are great.
If the aim of the competition is to have the skill of every team determines who wins then the use of faction mods and implants needs to be cut back, not expanded.
Edit: I think allowing T2 and Faction ammo is good in either case. Faction ammo isn't such a big deal and being able judge what t2 ammo to use when is skill based.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
|
|
LeMonde
|
Posted - 2006.10.07 22:49:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Baun Edited by: Baun on 07/10/2006 22:46:43 I think that faction modules, as per the last tournament, should not be allowed and further that pirate implants should not be allowed.
Anything that can make the competition more skill based instead of isk based is, in my opinion preferable. The early rounds will be completely dominated by the alliances that spend the most isk on implants and modules.
If the aim of the competition is to have the skill of the few alliances that spend tons and tons of isk determine who wins then the current rules are great.
If the aim of the competition is to have the skill of every team determines who wins then the use of faction mods and implants needs to be cut back, not expanded.
Edit: I think allowing T2 and Faction ammo is good in either case. Faction ammo isn't such a big deal and being able judge what t2 ammo to use when is skill based.
You just noticed the first thing missing in there. There are no plans to change faction modules, they are still restricted.
|
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2006.10.07 23:54:00 -
[12]
Originally by: LeMonde
Originally by: Baun Edited by: Baun on 07/10/2006 22:46:43 I think that faction modules, as per the last tournament, should not be allowed and further that pirate implants should not be allowed.
Anything that can make the competition more skill based instead of isk based is, in my opinion preferable. The early rounds will be completely dominated by the alliances that spend the most isk on implants and modules.
If the aim of the competition is to have the skill of the few alliances that spend tons and tons of isk determine who wins then the current rules are great.
If the aim of the competition is to have the skill of every team determines who wins then the use of faction mods and implants needs to be cut back, not expanded.
Edit: I think allowing T2 and Faction ammo is good in either case. Faction ammo isn't such a big deal and being able judge what t2 ammo to use when is skill based.
You just noticed the first thing missing in there. There are no plans to change faction modules, they are still restricted.
Thats good! ;p
Now how about banning pirate implants. You could RP it by allowing players to install jump clones in a concord station or something so they can get into a new body with different implants for the tournament.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
DJ Xod
Minmatar Eve Radio Corporation
|
Posted - 2006.10.08 00:56:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Baun Edited by: Baun on 07/10/2006 22:46:43Thats good! ;p
Now how about banning pirate implants. You could RP it by allowing players to install jump clones in a concord station or something so they can get into a new body with different implants for the tournament.
There were two issues brought up surrounding this:
1. The amount of time that it would take to check each pilot.
2. How do we handle pilots that are maxed on their jump clones?
I'm not certain, but there might be other implications surrounding this that may not make it possible. TBH - I would like to see them taken out as well, but at the same time I have a clear understanding of the constraints we are working with.
http://www.eve-radio.com |
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2006.10.08 01:32:00 -
[14]
Originally by: DJ Xod
Originally by: Baun Edited by: Baun on 07/10/2006 22:46:43Thats good! ;p
Now how about banning pirate implants. You could RP it by allowing players to install jump clones in a concord station or something so they can get into a new body with different implants for the tournament.
There were two issues brought up surrounding this:
1. The amount of time that it would take to check each pilot.
2. How do we handle pilots that are maxed on their jump clones?
I'm not certain, but there might be other implications surrounding this that may not make it possible. TBH - I would like to see them taken out as well, but at the same time I have a clear understanding of the constraints we are working with.
Lets continue the discussion in the other thread. I made my posts here not seeing that thread.
I don't think it could take very long to check each pilot though. Its just one more step after checking their fitting. The last constraint is troubling but it could be dealt with, it just might be very time consuming after the fact.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
jamesw
Omniscient Order
|
Posted - 2006.10.08 07:46:00 -
[15]
Nice Rules <3
The only thing I am unsure about in there is why Webbers and painters are limited, yet ECM is not?? ECM can balance out the issues caused by ships with more than one webber / painter, so imo there should be a bit of consistency there.
Otherwise, I love it. It will make for some really interesting tactics and setups...
Good luck to all who apply --
NEW Vid: Domi For the Win! |
Marnix
Gallente Shinra Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.10.08 09:52:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Marnix on 08/10/2006 09:56:49
Quote: If both teams have destroyed equal amounts of ships, we will go to assault frigate duels. The duels are best 2 out of 3 and follow the same fitting restrictions as the tournament. Any member of the team can participate, but each one in no more than one duel.
Regarding this. What happens in the (however unlikely) scenario that a team doesnt have 3 pilots capable of flying Assault Frigates? Might seem like a silly question, but i want to be sure.
Besides that i dont see the reasoning in limiting webs and painters, especially this severely. Atleast allow a ship to fit a web AND a painter... Allowing only one of the two per ship is an insult to Minmatar Recons, who can only use ONE module that they get a bonus to? (As opposed to, f.e, 7 for the Falcon.)
Stay the fck away from my sig, thx.
|
5n4keyes
Caldari Sacred Templars DeStInY.
|
Posted - 2006.10.08 10:46:00 -
[17]
Question, if someone for example wanted to use a faction frigate, what does it come under in the points table? eg, t1 or t2 frig?
|
Ithildin
Gallente The Corporation
|
Posted - 2006.10.08 11:34:00 -
[18]
It would be very nice if more logistics ships were present. They are far from the same class as the other T2 cruisers, though, so how about treating them like T1 battlecruisers in terms of cost and limitation? (Note: damage output on these are laughable, speed and survivability is comparable to assault frigs, remote repairing is in the order of 100 to 200 HP/s sustainable depending on speed module running or not)
ECM - Well, better be only one module per ship. It's still going to ruin the fun in most fights. Just remember the first tourny you staged on FF, where the one with most and first ECM won.
T2 ammo - Tuxford was working on a fix for these, and that fix had better be in by the time of the tourny. T2 ammo has a high tendency to absolutely ruin ship balance.
Important: If the number of ships are counted in this format, it will favour the team with the fewest and most expensive (point-wise) ships!
I know that I am commenting this on black-marked rules, but it's important to review. Example: Team A - Machariel and Absolution only. Team B - Astarte, 2 Brutix, 4 Punishers. Team A pops the four Punishers, but in the end lose both ships. According to the rules, Team A, inspite of having been wiped out, has killed four ships. Team B, inspite of having 42% survivability and remaining, lose the fight since they only killed two ships. This system favours those who field few, high-point ships. If the rules allowed for a POINT system instead, Team B would win since they killed 20 points and Team A only 4 points. This system favour neither ship setup. There are two more systems for counting wins that I can come up with on the fly (surviving points and surviving ships), but neither feel intuitive.
So, since you are using a point-system for constructing teams, how about using a point system for scoring as well? - Three years old |
jamesw
Omniscient Order
|
Posted - 2006.10.08 11:44:00 -
[19]
How many points are Indy's worth. Is there a distinction between t1 and t2?
--
NEW Vid: Domi For the Win! |
Trevedian
Amarr KR0M The Red Skull
|
Posted - 2006.10.08 12:09:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Ithildin It would be very nice if more logistics ships were present. They are far from the same class as the other T2 cruisers, though, so how about treating them like T1 battlecruisers in terms of cost and limitation? (Note: damage output on these are laughable, speed and survivability is comparable to assault frigs, remote repairing is in the order of 100 to 200 HP/s sustainable depending on speed module running or not)
ECM - Well, better be only one module per ship. It's still going to ruin the fun in most fights. Just remember the first tourny you staged on FF, where the one with most and first ECM won.
T2 ammo - Tuxford was working on a fix for these, and that fix had better be in by the time of the tourny. T2 ammo has a high tendency to absolutely ruin ship balance.
Important: If the number of ships are counted in this format, it will favour the team with the fewest and most expensive (point-wise) ships!
I know that I am commenting this on black-marked rules, but it's important to review. Example: Team A - Machariel and Absolution only. Team B - Astarte, 2 Brutix, 4 Punishers. Team A pops the four Punishers, but in the end lose both ships. According to the rules, Team A, inspite of having been wiped out, has killed four ships. Team B, inspite of having 42% survivability and remaining, lose the fight since they only killed two ships. This system favours those who field few, high-point ships. If the rules allowed for a POINT system instead, Team B would win since they killed 20 points and Team A only 4 points. This system favour neither ship setup. There are two more systems for counting wins that I can come up with on the fly (surviving points and surviving ships), but neither feel intuitive.
So, since you are using a point-system for constructing teams, how about using a point system for scoring as well?
Are you serious that you think Logistic ships would make the tournament more interesting? Yeah the extra tanking would be SOOOO fun to watch (they'll be jammed anyway, so they won't be able to remote rep)
Its a T2 Cruiser and should be treated as such, teams used them in place of a HAC or Recon ship last time and won so get over it...
Since it doesn't say 1 ECM module per ship you can expect people to fit as much EW as they want... EW can be countered in many ways, so you gotta be prepared for it.
In your illustration with the Astarte, 2 Brutix, 4 Punishers, you forgot to read the rules (5 Ships Allowed Max per round, 7 on a team). But I think Lemonde prolly will be going with points of ships killed anyway but we'll have to see.
With regards to the 2 of 3 Assault Frigate tiebreakers, I understood it as you only need one pilot with an AF and he can fly it 3 times, you don't need 3 AF pilots.
Now even when you see what ships the other team is flying, there is no guarantee that you know how they are fitted or what their tactics will be...
Sex0r > you're bounty turns me on.. you seem like the kind of amarrian to dominate me
|
|
Morning Maniac
Eve University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2006.10.08 12:17:00 -
[21]
Just let go of the 5 pilots thing and then I can take my entire corp in industrials (0 points ftw)
MM
http://eve.xonectic.com/forum/(out of game) EVE University commercial |
Ithildin
Gallente The Corporation
|
Posted - 2006.10.08 14:49:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Ithildin on 08/10/2006 14:50:50
Originally by: Trevedian Are you serious that you think Logistic ships would make the tournament more interesting? Yeah the extra tanking would be SOOOO fun to watch (they'll be jammed anyway, so they won't be able to remote rep)
Its a T2 Cruiser and should be treated as such, teams used them in place of a HAC or Recon ship last time and won so get over it...
Since it doesn't say 1 ECM module per ship you can expect people to fit as much EW as they want... EW can be countered in many ways, so you gotta be prepared for it.
In your illustration with the Astarte, 2 Brutix, 4 Punishers, you forgot to read the rules (5 Ships Allowed Max per round, 7 on a team). But I think Lemonde prolly will be going with points of ships killed anyway but we'll have to see.
With regards to the 2 of 3 Assault Frigate tiebreakers, I understood it as you only need one pilot with an AF and he can fly it 3 times, you don't need 3 AF pilots.
Now even when you see what ships the other team is flying, there is no guarantee that you know how they are fitted or what their tactics will be...
So I was sitting on the train contemplating my post and realized that someone was bound to be stupid enough to nitpick. It's hypothetical and illustrative, not actual.
- Revised example - Team A - 2 ships, 18 points. Team B - 5 ships, 24 points. Result: Team A kills 3 ships for 5 points value. Team B kills 2 ships for 20 points value. Team A is the winner inspite of having been wiped out, and inspite of Team B having just as many ships as Team A STARTED with and MORE points than Team A START with.
As for logistics ships, yes I'd like to see more of them. All they can do is remote tank, and no they won't be jammed, they'll be shot down and killed (every single logistics ship that's been used before has proven severely ineffective).
It doesn't say one ECM per ship, I know. That's why I wrote that it had better be, since I consider ECM currently to be game breaking AND BORING even outside tournaments since they make battles completely ONE SIDED.
As for Assault Frigates, I never commented the tiebreaker, so please take better care when quoting. But since you got so upset that I hadn't read the rules, I'll take the oppurtonity to scream at you, incidentally in exactly the same manner you did. What a coincidence... You forgot to read the rules (Any member of the team can participate, but each one in no more than one duel.)!
Geez. Have some coffe and wake up before posting. - Three years old |
ookke
|
Posted - 2006.10.09 14:56:00 -
[23]
unlimited ECM will make the tournament a big joke. I can already imagine ravens with 5x ECM II and armortank... or even worse, ECM-CNR.
24 points and 5 ships will be more than able to permalock up the other team while running logistics bots on it's own team. How will this make the matches any shorter or interesting, when the only dmg dealt is a couple of attack drones that were assigned before the owner got jammed?
It will also be a big lottery about who has damps, who has ecm, who has more sensor boosters, who has eccm, who has better luck on jams instead of a match about piloting skill and setups.
|
Darpz
Rampage Eternal
|
Posted - 2006.10.09 15:03:00 -
[24]
yup unlimited ECM is bad 1 per ship kinda made sence though
|
|
LeMonde
|
Posted - 2006.10.09 15:55:00 -
[25]
Originally by: ookke unlimited ECM will make the tournament a big joke. I can already imagine ravens with 5x ECM II and armortank... or even worse, ECM-CNR.
24 points and 5 ships will be more than able to permalock up the other team while running logistics bots on it's own team. How will this make the matches any shorter or interesting, when the only dmg dealt is a couple of attack drones that were assigned before the owner got jammed?
It will also be a big lottery about who has damps, who has ecm, who has more sensor boosters, who has eccm, who has better luck on jams instead of a match about piloting skill and setups.
I think you're giving too much credit to ECM. There are several ship setups where you have three big ships and 2-4 extra points for Tech 1 frigates or destroyers. ECCM projectors/remote sensor boosters can be very useful on those
|
|
ookke
|
Posted - 2006.10.09 17:19:00 -
[26]
Originally by: LeMonde
I think you're giving too much credit to ECM. There are several ship setups where you have three big ships and 2-4 extra points for Tech 1 frigates or destroyers. ECCM projectors/remote sensor boosters can be very useful on those
Don't see how fitting ECCM will help against dampeners, so you still have the lottery between fitting eccm/eccm projectors/sensor boosters/remote sensor boosters/your own EW. On top of that, an EW support griffin will last for about 0.4 seconds with t2 missiles being used.
I don't mind choices in ship setups, but having to select EW and anti-EW modules on random and hope you get lucky doesn't sound tempting.
|
NebulousBlur
Minmatar Unknown Shoe Corp. SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.10.09 22:19:00 -
[27]
I'm curious about why target painting and webbing is restricted, but ECM and dampening isn't? Are there restrictions on target painting drones and webber drones?
My first gut reaction to reading the rules was fear especially with ECM and dampening allowed. But when I actually looke at what can be fielded with 24-28 points across 5 pilots I'm not quite as worried.
I also agree with the others about the time limit - if the time limit is reached, it should be resolved using the point values of the destroyed ships, not just the number of ships.
|
Swanic
|
Posted - 2006.10.10 00:24:00 -
[28]
t1 frigates includes faction frigates at 1point per? |
Nifel
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.10.10 02:01:00 -
[29]
It feels like I'm missing something here. Are you supposed to have a 5-man team? With only 24 points you're extremely limited in what you can do.
For example: Tier1 BS + T1 BC + T1 Cruiser + T1 Destroyer + T1 Frig = 23 points. That leaves a whole 1 point to play around with. Start mixing in T2 and you'll be sorry you even bothered trying. Even limiting the number of players makes it nigh impossible to come up with anything even remotely interesting.
Say for example I only go with a 3 man team. Tier1 BS + T1 BC + T1 Cruiser = 20 points. Wee... 4 points to play around with. Now I can choose to go with T2 BC and T2 Cruiser but still be left with a Tier1 BS which doesn't leave that much to desire. Going for a faction BS will gimp just about any team because you're left with extremely few choices even with just a 3man team.
"When I die I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandpa. Not yelling and screaming like the passengers in his car." RKK Ranking: (MIN14) |
jamesw
Omniscient Order
|
Posted - 2006.10.10 02:35:00 -
[30]
Originally by: ookke
Originally by: LeMonde
I think you're giving too much credit to ECM. There are several ship setups where you have three big ships and 2-4 extra points for Tech 1 frigates or destroyers. ECCM projectors/remote sensor boosters can be very useful on those
Don't see how fitting ECCM will help against dampeners, so you still have the lottery between fitting eccm/eccm projectors/sensor boosters/remote sensor boosters/your own EW. On top of that, an EW support griffin will last for about 0.4 seconds with t2 missiles being used.
I don't mind choices in ship setups, but having to select EW and anti-EW modules on random and hope you get lucky doesn't sound tempting.
Its not random. You know who you are fighting in all rounds, and you can get a pretty good idea of what they will field based on their previous fights. The further you go in the tournament, the more opportunity you have to study your adversaries. WIN!
--
NEW Vid: Domi For the Win! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |