Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 13 post(s) |
LegendaryFrog
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:41:00 -
[61] - Quote
I think its a bit naive to think that almost every team won't use this on almost every match. When a single loss can knock you out of the tournament completely, nobody is going to give up such a huge advantage in order to secure "a few more points" |
TinkerHell
Muppet Ninja's Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
3
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:41:00 -
[62] - Quote
Removing people from the fight without killing them? erm...what?
So people will log on to play the tournement, excited. Oh wait mate you are banned from this match...what?
Lets not forget people will be logging on in different timezones so it could be like 4am for them and then they get told they cant fight? Others might even take days off work..
Why would anyone think this is a good idea? especially when you can just remove the fc from the fight before the match starts..This is a pvp game isnt it? People should explode not get told to sit on the sidelines. |
Augustus IX
Function Zero
1
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:42:00 -
[63] - Quote
look at all these PL scrubs crying because the "mad strat" ships will be banned |
Tyrrax Thorrk
Guiding Hand Social Club Dystopia Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:45:00 -
[64] - Quote
not like it's only PL, the only top 4 team from last time that hasn't posted against it is Darkside, and that's probably just cos they're russians
|
Ntrails
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:46:00 -
[65] - Quote
So why not simply remove the logistics ships and put the points at 88/players at 9
How many at8 matches did not hinge on who killed the first logi? |
AnakieNine
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:47:00 -
[66] - Quote
Your post is a bit late for April 1st. |
kunniz
ISKRA-FU-0717 Paisti Syndicate
1
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:47:00 -
[67] - Quote
So, what happens people always remove the logistic or command ship, and turtle with ecm ships
this will be entertaining to watch |
Slapnuts McGee
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
15
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:48:00 -
[68] - Quote
Ntrails wrote: How many at8 matches did not hinge on who killed the first logi? none of ours |
Strider Hiryu
Kangaroos With Frickin Lazerbeams The KWFL Republic
4
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:50:00 -
[69] - Quote
CCP Mindstar wrote:DG J wrote:Utterly terrible...
Please just get rid of it now.
Also, you demolish strategies for the pre-qualifiers since people bringing under 4 ships will automatically end up with three, and any heavy DPS they brought will end up gone.
Meaning the only real strategy for the pre-qualifiers is a lot of smaller ships, no BS, no CS, and the logi will likely be sent away. Banning will not be allowed in pre-quals. if that is not clear in the rules it is my fault and I will need to clarify it.
Because everyone wants to watch exciting pre-quals and boring as **** finals......
|
Tyrrax Thorrk
Guiding Hand Social Club Dystopia Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:51:00 -
[70] - Quote
The rule basically means you're dumb if you field;
battleships - (unless flagship) strategic cruisers - so no pretty t3 explosions buuuuu command ships - dumbing every strat down
you might as well field a logistic ship just so it gets removed since it's cheaper to lose 12 points than 13-14 point ships |
|
Ntrails
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:52:00 -
[71] - Quote
prequals with 4 DPS and 1 logi
that sounds really exciting to me. |
LegendaryFrog
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:52:00 -
[72] - Quote
Slapnuts McGee wrote:Ntrails wrote: How many at8 matches did not hinge on who killed the first logi? none of ours
Confirming that PL did not utilize logistics in its setups, nor target the logistics of the hostile fleet. |
Icas Otame
The Nintendo Generation Snatch Victory
0
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:53:00 -
[73] - Quote
Well I for one am really looking forward to this rule!
The last tournement was so exciting, but I'm now really looking forward to some interesting fleets here.
I mean, sure last time had the logistics (only one), and no one in their right mind would bring one and waste those points now!
Also, we had all those crap Frekis being flown around, I'm sure glad we won't have to look at those again.
Even better, no more of that eight man, well planned gang with just a few nice ships in it. With this awesome new rule, no one in their right mind would field less than ten ships, since their most powerful ones can just get blown up right away.
These are just a few of the exciting changes I can see coming from this, I'm sure other people will think of more. I for one welcome our new BC brawlfesting overlords. |
Ntrails
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:54:00 -
[74] - Quote
in fairness to PL they steamrolled the opposition and barely lost a ship in most of their matches.
|
LeoniaTavira
Violent Alternatives Rote Kapelle
0
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:54:00 -
[75] - Quote
this is just
all this does is limit options. there are NO UPSIDES Tournaments have featured some amazingly different setups in the past, but this is just forcing everyone to have the maximum number of moderately priced redundant ships possible.
http://www.youtube.com/u...F837458AE/69/tBwalkL7S5w This match was an awesome victory of the unconventional. Imagine what would have happened to that setup if they were down a man. This punishes anyone who even considers bringing less ships to the fight. |
LoveKebab
Flash Over. WE FORM VOLTRON
0
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:56:00 -
[76] - Quote
Strider Hiryu wrote:IM IN AUSTRALIA, AND I STAY UP TILL ******* 4am IN THE MORNING, JUST TO GET ******* BANNED, **** THAT ****>>>> that one thing would be hilarious actually :) |
Slapnuts McGee
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
15
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:58:00 -
[77] - Quote
LegendaryFrog wrote:Slapnuts McGee wrote:Ntrails wrote: How many at8 matches did not hinge on who killed the first logi? none of ours Confirming that PL did not utilize logistics in its setups, nor target the logistics of the hostile fleet. confirming that none of our matches hinged upon who killed the first logi... our matches hinged on whether or not you were flying with Shamis or someone else. |
Ntrails
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 16:59:00 -
[78] - Quote
LeoniaTavira wrote:this is just all this does is limit options. there are NO UPSIDES Tournaments have featured some amazingly different setups in the past, but this is just forcing everyone to have the maximum number of moderately priced redundant ships possible. http://www.youtube.com/u...F837458AE/69/tBwalkL7S5wThis match was an awesome victory of the unconventional. Imagine what would have happened to that setup if they were down a man. This punishes anyone who even considers bringing less ships to the fight.
entire match hinged on killing their scimitar followed by a swift demolishing of the remaining buffer tanks?
colour me surprised |
Kyang Tia
Back to Yarrr
0
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 17:09:00 -
[79] - Quote
I do unterstand why this banning thing could seem like a good idea. It would force teams to conceal their strategy so that their most important ship doesn't get banned. So one would have to place decoys (e.g. bait-logistics or whatever) and so on which sounds cool.
I do, however, think that any team that relies on their opponent to fall for the bait has the disadventage on their side. Why? Well, most importantly due to spying. (Former tournaments have shown what PL is capable of!) I personally think that this banning stuff would add a HUGE advantage to anyone who knows their opponent's plan before the match. And I really, really (like really) don't want to see more teams to win only because they infiltrated forums or teamspeak servers. But even if teams don't know what's going on on the other side, they might still vote a very important ship (or the FC) to be banned, just by luck.
This makes me afraid that the above posters are right to say that most teams will have as much redudancy as possible, which would indeed be boring.
|
REDNECKPRICECHECK
Black Prophecy Industrial Red Skull Society
1
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 17:10:00 -
[80] - Quote
I actually had to go back and see if this thread was originally posted on April Fools day... I really can't believe that anyone out there could POSSIBLY think this would be a good idea. |
|
MadMax RuS
Fremen Sietch DarkSide.
2
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 17:10:00 -
[81] - Quote
This is so wrong.
Banning will prevent people from using complex setups where every ship counts and as a result most fights will be like my dps is bigger than your dps => die pls kthx. If this great feature is to make fights more dramatic, it will not work as intended.
Please remove it before its too late.
Tyrrax Thorrk wrote:not like it's only PL, the only top 4 team from last time that hasn't posted against it is Darkside, and that's probably just cos they're russians
JUSTICE |
Faffywaffy
Fremen Sietch DarkSide.
1
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 17:14:00 -
[82] - Quote
Tyrrax Thorrk wrote:not like it's only PL, the only top 4 team from last time that hasn't posted against it is Darkside, and that's probably just cos they're russians
Posting. |
Dyntheos
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 17:17:00 -
[83] - Quote
its a pretty bad idea
as has been mentioned,
- the removal of hinge ships can screw up your entire setup, and thus promotes redundancy. weeklong planning and tinkering goes to the paperbin because of "trolololol". - known fcs are likely to be removed - its simply not fun for the removed person, who gets hyped up and then cant fly
of course there has always been a random element involved to ruin your plans - someone brings the "paper" composition to your "stone" - whether because of luck, good guessing, spying etc. , and that's as it should be, but this is too much. the devblog meant it in jest, but its probably really the reasoning behind the change - it'd be "hilarious" and "really evil". yeah, hilarious for the watchers maybe but probably not for the teams who spent a good amount of time tinkering.
of course you could say that the other team wil be screwed up aswell, but id prefer having my own team intact to screwing up the other.
|
Ayari
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
2
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 17:23:00 -
[84] - Quote
I didn't get to fly in the last tournament because the setups that we ran with didn't cover any of the ships I specialised in. I'd be pretty angry if I got picked for one setup by our team captain, only to be banned while on grid.
Activity in CAIN really spikes during the tournament, It would suck for one of our inactive members to re-sub, get picked and then get banned by the opposing team.
Please consider the fact that some older players only stick around for the chance to participate in the tournament.
|
Rutefly
Freedom-Technologies Eych Four Eks Zero Ahr
2
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 17:24:00 -
[85] - Quote
Beside this being proof that they grow some very potent weed on Iceland, theres also another aspect of this discussion: Its hard to present a counter argument based on a serious analysis of every aspect of something this silly. So weighing the cons against pros should be done on an equally useless level as this idea was concieved on.
Myself, im torn between crying and giggling madly. |
Ntrails
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 17:24:00 -
[86] - Quote
Dyntheos wrote: of course you could say that the other team wil be screwed up aswell, but id prefer having my own team intact to screwing up the other.
it completely removes the 'key ship' option from the setup toolbox. You lose variety to deal with the issue of a dumb rule. Anyone who doesn't will get rolled.
fun times eh? |
Tyrrax Thorrk
Guiding Hand Social Club Dystopia Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 17:33:00 -
[87] - Quote
MadMax RuS wrote:This is so wrong. Banning will prevent people from using complex setups where every ship counts and as a result most fights will be like my dps is bigger than your dps => die pls kthx. If this great feature is to make fights more dramatic, it will not work as intended. Please remove it before its too late. Tyrrax Thorrk wrote:not like it's only PL, the only top 4 team from last time that hasn't posted against it is Darkside, and that's probably just cos they're russians
JUSTICE
<3 Russians |
DG J
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 17:44:00 -
[88] - Quote
How about both teams must agree before seeing the fits of the other team that they will get to ban one of each teams ships?
Make it consensual. |
Logan Fyreite
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
3
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 17:47:00 -
[89] - Quote
Not really sure what to say about this... I mean it's obvious to me that this is a bad idea.
A real bad idea. If CCP can't see that, just like only allowing the top 4 to auto-qualify, then there isn't much that can be done.
To be honest, previous history shows that CCP dev's read these threads through rose-colored glasses so I cringe every time I read "oh this doesn't seem that bad." Or "this could work if you limit the number of times it can be used."
Tourney's in the past have been great because it has been left up to the theory-crafters and the execution of the team to engage the plan.
To put it in simple terms, imagine if this was possible at a football match (soccer), wouldn't near every team remove the goalie? Isn't that person usually the hinge point of their team. I mean if nobody is in the net, and nobody can use their hands, it makes it a touch easier to score doesn't it?
Let's reflect this back to actually playing eve online, in a regular fight, granted it's rare that you get to fight 10v10 in the first place, but I've never seen a FC be able to remove someone from said fight by selection.
The tourney ALREADY doesn't reflect pvp in Eve, can we maybe make a change to make it more resemble in-game pvp? Instead of moving it even further away?
Perhaps just keep the rules from last year and re-shift points? |
Strider Hiryu
Kangaroos With Frickin Lazerbeams The KWFL Republic
4
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 17:50:00 -
[90] - Quote
Logan Fyreite wrote:Not really sure what to say about this... I mean it's obvious to me that this is a bad idea. A real bad idea. If CCP can't see that, just like only allowing the top 4 to auto-qualify, then there isn't much that can be done. To be honest, previous history shows that CCP dev's read these threads through rose-colored glasses so I cringe every time I read "oh this doesn't seem that bad." Or "this could work if you limit the number of times it can be used." Tourney's in the past have been great because it has been left up to the theory-crafters and the execution of the team to engage the plan. To put it in simple terms, imagine if this was possible at a football match (soccer), wouldn't near every team remove the goalie? Isn't that person usually the hinge point of their team. I mean if nobody is in the net, and nobody can use their hands, it makes it a touch easier to score doesn't it? Let's reflect this back to actually playing eve online, in a regular fight, granted it's rare that you get to fight 10v10 in the first place, but I've never seen a FC be able to remove someone from said fight by selection. The tourney ALREADY doesn't reflect pvp in Eve, can we maybe make a change to make it more resemble in-game pvp? Instead of moving it even further away? Perhaps just keep the rules from last year and re-shift points? As much as rote kapelle smell like donkeys, the man speaks sense. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |