Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 13 post(s) |
Sentient Blade
Walk It Off Coalition of the Unfortunate
2
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:02:00 -
[31] - Quote
Meh it seems like a really bad idea to me. I'm no fleet expert but it would seem this would eliminate many possible fleet configurations and would reduce the fleets to clones.
If you were to remove a ship before the start then it should be done medieval style: Each team should nominate a single champion to go one-on-one and the loser is out before the battle proper.
But no, it does not seem like a good idea at all. |
WiseMan Ari
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:10:00 -
[32] - Quote
this idea seems really retarted. It only insures that all setups most not have any lynchpin ships, and therefore become alot more boring and predictable. |
Darpz
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:12:00 -
[33] - Quote
pretty bad idea. will take alot of creativity out of the setups, since alot of the really cool setups were very risky to begin with, now that you will lose a key ship from any setup it will encourage very basic setups that are basically high speed brawler ships. Make it 1 Time use and not able to be used on a flag and you might see it be fun. |
LoveKebab
Flash Over. WE FORM VOLTRON
0
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:15:00 -
[34] - Quote
aahahahahahahah, u keeping up to our expectations each new AT is worse than the previous ones .... way2go |
Destiny Calling
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
1
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:20:00 -
[35] - Quote
CCP Mindstar wrote:This is precisely what it is intended to do
hahahahah |
Firnas
The Nintendo Generation Snatch Victory
7
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:21:00 -
[36] - Quote
This is the worst thing I have seen from CCP since I walked into the game.
From a practical standpoint, you just removed all logistics from the game. I certainly would not permit a logistics ship to sit on the field given the option to remove it from the enemy fleet. You have also forced people to play with Flagships, something I understand was the gimmick last year that you guys thought would be cool to forcibly push as a big lynchpin of fleets in AT9.
That's great, but did you consider the fact that the tournament was rebalanced years ago to make it more about pvp and less about spending 20 billion on one ship?
From a player standpoint, these guys work hard, I know my guys work incredibly hard, to get here. Their work ethic in my alliance earns them spots on the field, in maybe only 2 matches a year. Now at least 1 guy, and probably more, get to do all that work, warp onto the field, and get screwed. That is about as un motivating as you can get.
From a meta standpoint, as stated above, this tournament was redesigned to put the focus on pvp, not on just spending billions of isk on a ship or a few ships. With these new changes of yours, the entire game now revolves around gunning down the enemy, and placing simply as much isk as you possibly can onto your flagship. You have managed to if not destroy, then severely damage the entire concept of designing a intricate fleet. The fleet is now "make big flagship, put gunboats around it, smash smash".
There was a post in the other thread that said something to the effect of "I hope you guys aren't trying to do something crazy in your first attempt at running the tournament", and that seems rather prescient now. Did you guys forget this tournament should be about PvP and not about gimmicks?
I live for this tournament, as anyone who plays with me or knows me can tell you, and even my enthusiasm for this tournament has been terribly damped. I love the pure planning and combat, and you have introduced a reality tv show vote off into it.
Thanks so much CCP. This is one of those things I won't ever forget, like when I went to sleep one night, and woke up to find that SOE had taken away Star Wars Galaxies and given me some kind of clone of another game in the night. |
Slapnuts McGee
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
15
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:21:00 -
[37] - Quote
I would like to ban CCP Mindstar from the AT9 team. |
Louanne Barros
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
2
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:22:00 -
[38] - Quote
So we're supposed to devote countless hours to testing and practicing, only to arrive to the field and be told we can't participate?
We're supposed to now favor homogeneous, redundant setups over those that squeeze every ounce of efficiency out of every ship?
We're supposed to buy into the idea that banning a famous/useful/dedicated player from every match is somehow funny and/or exciting, and not just mean-spirited?
This must be a troll, there's just no way this could have gone through a thorough vetting without being shouted down.
Edit: Although, to be fair, I have to remember who we're talking about here. |
Seldarine
Boats 'n Hoes WE FORM VOLTRON
0
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:23:00 -
[39] - Quote
I am not sure what to mkae of this rule.
I can understand how it would be hilarious to see a setup thats relient on a logistics to suddenly have their logistics removed, or teams not relient on logistics fielding a bait logistics in the hope it will be removed, but I am worried that this rule will actually just result in more generic and boring setups where there is no single weak link.
I agree with some previous comments that this rule doesnt necessarily need to be removed, but possibly refined. Such as you can opt to remove an enemy ship only if your team fields for example, less that 90 points, or be only able to remove a ship 1 time during the tournament, or one time per weekend. |
Fintroll
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
18
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:23:00 -
[40] - Quote
you seriously missed a hilarious troll here and you should all be ashamed of yourselves whoever came up with these rules
if you'd made it so each team only gets 1 ban to use for the whole tournament literally everybody would use theirs on PL and you might actually have a new winner this year
as it is we're just gonna steamroll again and you're all gonna cry about it on LIVE TELEVISION |
|
Mr Rive
Rens 911 GoonSwarm
28
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:25:00 -
[41] - Quote
Firnas wrote: There was a post in the other thread that said something to the effect of "I hope you guys aren't trying to do something crazy in your first attempt at running the tournament", and that seems rather prescient now. Did you guys forget this tournament should be about PvP and not about gimmicks?
Well put |
The Hardman
Uncle Fester's Olde Tyme Barbershoppe
0
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:25:00 -
[42] - Quote
I actually like the limited number of bans idea. Like 2? |
Slapnuts McGee
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
15
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:27:00 -
[43] - Quote
The Hardman wrote:I actually like the limited number of bans idea. Like 2? Everyone save yours for Pandemic Legion and Goonswarm
edit- lmao we're still going to steamroll and win another 50 unique ships uncontested again |
|
CCP Mindstar
C C P C C P Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:28:00 -
[44] - Quote
Seldarine wrote:I am not sure what to mkae of this rule.
I can understand how it would be hilarious to see a setup thats relient on a logistics to suddenly have their logistics removed, or teams not relient on logistics fielding a bait logistics in the hope it will be removed, but I am worried that this rule will actually just result in more generic and boring setups where there is no single weak link.
I agree with some previous comments that this rule doesnt necessarily need to be removed, but possibly refined. Such as you can opt to remove an enemy ship only if your team fields for example, less that 90 points, or be only able to remove a ship 1 time during the tournament, or one time per weekend.
We had some pretty heavy discussions along these lines. At this point we are pretty OK with it, but that is not to say we are not reading the feedback here. Hence why we specifically posted this thread ;)
|
|
ZyndeII
Legio Prima Victrix Imperius Legio Victrix
2
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:28:00 -
[45] - Quote
CCP Mindstar wrote:Mr Rive wrote:Just to be clear; this turns all the rules and setups and theorys from last year on its head. This is precisely what it is intended to do
Yes, it is indeed a good idea to try and do exactly that. But for the love of God, keep your feet on the ground...
The most interesting, intriguing and challenging part of all past AT's was to watch the ship setups unfold. In most cases, the really decisive matches have been won by the team presenting the best strategy on the field. Strategies are based on knowledge of the ships and their capabilities, a knowledge any experienced FC will have. Therefor, the AT will no longer be about the fact of fielding the best tactical setup (which will have been tested out hundreds of times on SiSi and decided about weeks before the first fights are fought), but it will be about being able to identify the key ship in the enemy fleet. Now that leaves the participants with two choices: either completely focus on "masking" the key ship so that there'd be a chance the enemy would pick the wrong ship before even considering tactics, or simply not have a key ship and go with blunt force of more or less all equivalent ships.
No offence to any of you guys, and I do acknowledge and appreciate the fact you are trying to beef things up a bit - but this is not the way. Let the pilots fight THEIR fights, and let the people be witness to fair fights with decent strategies. If you truly wish to turn things upside down, go open a thread and ask for suggestions. Apart from those already mentioned in this very thread, I bet people will be able to come up with different and most importantly better ideas. Don't turn this in slugfest, in which eventually the only winning move will be not to play at all. |
Raivi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
3
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:28:00 -
[46] - Quote
Although I don't agree with some of my alliance mates about this being the end of the world, I do hope that you have considered the effects of the change.
This is going to generate significantly less elegant teams. Teams with lots of redundancy will be effective, but less interesting to design and watch. This will add an extra layer of strategy to the match itself, but that will mostly be counteracted by the loss of interesting setups that use small fast ships.
If you want to incorporate the DOTA banning concept, a better way to implement it would be to let the teams chose one ship type that the opponent is not allowed to use, and submit that choice at least half an hour before the match. This will force teams to be adaptable, and will counteract fotm setups, yet still allow for complicated and interesting team designs.
These rules will hurt other teams a lot more than PL since we have a higher than average number of FCs available in each match, and I would always prefer that the rules be changed up significantly (even poorly) between tournaments than left the same. However if it's possible to tweak the concept quickly than I would advise doing so.
Basically I agree with Seldarine, except about the one removal for the whole tournament since that would make my job a bit too hard :P |
The Hardman
Uncle Fester's Olde Tyme Barbershoppe
0
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:32:00 -
[47] - Quote
Slapnuts McGee wrote:The Hardman wrote:I actually like the limited number of bans idea. Like 2? Everyone save yours for Pandemic Legion and Goonswarm edit- lmao we're still going to steamroll and win another 50 unique ships uncontested again
Why would anyone care about Goonswarm?
I mean, they are cool cats, but that doesn't make them good at alliance tournaments. |
Slapnuts McGee
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
15
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:32:00 -
[48] - Quote
Raivi wrote:Although I don't agree with some of my alliance mates about this being the end of the world, I do hope that you have considered the effects of the change. it's not the end of the world.... we're still going to steamroll everyone again, but it's going to be with 9 ships instead of 10 v0v
|
Dwergi
No.Mercy Merciless.
0
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:34:00 -
[49] - Quote
Dumb. Really unique setups will be reduced and everyone will have to field a bait logistics ship and plan to play without it. |
The Hardman
Uncle Fester's Olde Tyme Barbershoppe
0
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:34:00 -
[50] - Quote
Raivi wrote:
If you want to incorporate the DOTA banning concept, a better way to implement it would be to let the teams chose one ship type that the opponent is not allowed to use, and submit that choice at least half an hour before the match. This will force teams to be adaptable, and will counteract fotm setups, yet still allow for complicated and interesting team designs.
I like this idea too. Team Captain must submit a ship (type? class? make?) which can not be used by opposing team one day before the tournament match. |
|
Tyrrax Thorrk
Guiding Hand Social Club Dystopia Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:35:00 -
[51] - Quote
it's more of a nerf to command ships than logistics ships, will encourage people to only field ships in the 8-13 point range, (also nobody good will field battleships / marauders / black ops unless it's a flagship)
i'd much prefer something like if you only field 90 points and enemy fields 100 you can remove 10 points worth of enemy ship from the field (but can only do so once or twice at the most in tournament) and if you both fielded 90 for this purpose neither team can remove anything
something interesting could be done with the idea, but its current form is awful |
DHB WildCat
Flash Over. WE FORM VOLTRON
14
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:35:00 -
[52] - Quote
This is a very bad idea.
You can in effect remove the enemy FC and mastermind from the match before it even begins. Why? Why let someone work so hard for so many months and then tell them, "Well the other team doesnt want you here so you are now not able to fight in the match. Sorry you worked so hard to get here but too bad!"
They only way someone should be removed from the match is forcibly through their ship!
Wild
Please reconsider this rule. Do not take away the tournament from someone who worked so hard to get in. |
Jogyn
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
1
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:35:00 -
[53] - Quote
lol |
Strider Hiryu
Kangaroos With Frickin Lazerbeams The KWFL Republic
4
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:36:00 -
[54] - Quote
THIS BANNING IS STUPID GENERIC SETUPS>>>>> BORING> ANYTHING THAT ISNT GENERIC HAS AN OBVIOUS STRONG SHIP, THAT GETS BANNED. THIS MEANS FLAG SHIP EVERY MATCH. THIS MEANS RICH ALLIANCE WIN EVERY TIME>>>> FAIR??? NO. FIX THIS ****. THIS SHOULD BE A BATTLE OF SKILL, NOT A BATTLE OF WALLETS> |
Meridith Akesia
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
45
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:38:00 -
[55] - Quote
Firnas wrote:Did you guys forget this tournament should be about PvP and not about gimmicks?
This.
|
Seldarine
Boats 'n Hoes WE FORM VOLTRON
0
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:38:00 -
[56] - Quote
Removing something like 3/4 of the hitpoints from a ship of choice could be interesting. |
QwaarJet
hirr Morsus Mihi
0
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:39:00 -
[57] - Quote
I don't like the idea of people giving up their time to get ready for a match and then get booted before even taking part. |
Strider Hiryu
Kangaroos With Frickin Lazerbeams The KWFL Republic
4
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:39:00 -
[58] - Quote
THE SANDBOX, where we limit creativity............... |
leboe
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
0
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:40:00 -
[59] - Quote
My big concern is small alliances with 1 FC. Rote won't have this problem but I'd hate to ruin the match for someone else because their version of eve is ctrl-click F1. |
Strider Hiryu
Kangaroos With Frickin Lazerbeams The KWFL Republic
4
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:40:00 -
[60] - Quote
IM IN AUSTRALIA, AND I STAY UP TILL ******* 4am IN THE MORNING, JUST TO GET ******* BANNED, **** THAT ****>>>> |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |