Theres already 4 pages explaining why when you posted this. The bad poster is U.

Im sorry, what? If by variety of opinion you mean a tally of people who like it and hate it, i think you already have your answer for that. If by variety of alliances, you already have the top 4 teams braying out against it. What more do you want?

I could pull my alt on here and say LOL I LIKE DIS IDEA but i dont think it would make it any better...

Ill try and give you as best an explantion of it as i can:

Ive been very active at planning PL tourney teams in the past, and while not the best theorycrafter in PL, I go to a far end of a fart to make sure i know how the setups we choose work, and why.

Nobody can tell you precisely what effect this will have on the tournament yet, until we start testing for it (it is my fervent hope we will not have to), however, the first thought that comes into my head when thinking of this rule is generic setups. This means using teams that have no lynchpin in them, for instance a commandship, or a rook, or a logistics ship. We will also be forced to work around using flagships. What you will see therefore is a lot of slugfest matches, where an attempt is made to get as much DPS and EHP out of all the ships as possible, removing the need of a 'support ship' to back them up. Alterniavely, you will see teams full of jamming ships, so that if one is removed the impact on the team is small.

The result of this is obvious; you will end up with slugfests, or jamfests. The setups we all love to see, such as the all amarr team we ran last year will be no use. That setup relied on several factors being in place for it to work. You will see massive amounts of battlecruiser teams, whose matches will last a very short time indeed.

Metagaming will take a huge role in it as well. 90% of the time we know a team leaders alts and mains before we go into a match. What do you think will happen to those players. This actually makes it much easier for a team like PL to win, as ALL our team has had FCing experience at one point or another, meaning that if you removed shamis for instance, our coherance would remain the same. This obviously wouldnt be the case for smaller alliances. You are effectively condemning them to a short tournament.

The way im going about it, you would think that im against this because it will make it harder for PL. In fact the opposite is true. I dont think you could have done anything other than biasing the tournament in PL's favour, to make it easier for PL to win. Why so many of the big teams are against this so much is because it will make the tournament a lot less interesting to watch and play. A lot less intricate, a lot less flamboyant, a lot less 'pinpoint accurate'.

If you want solutions that might make this better, ask, but im not going to post them here, as i would rather see it removed altogether. You will already see completely different setups because of the other rule changes

EULA!

3 alliances ? p. sure it's more like 20 by now and the only person in favor is probably trolling (hi gob)

I'd ban the QB.

Seereres' post could be summed up as: "We didn't really think about what this would mean, we just had an idea and decided to roll with it. Now we'd like you to do our thinking for us and tell us why this is a bad idea."

I'd like to propose you do the opposite Sgree, tell us why this is a good idea.