So, as you may have read in CCP Mindstar's latest dev blog, we have now introduced a new feature into the Alliance Tournament rules, namely the ability to remove a ship from the field before the battle starts.

The way banning works, is that prior to the match starting, after both teams have warped into the arena, you are given 2 minutes to decide which, if any, of the ships from the opposing team you would like to remove from the match. This pick has to be communicated to GameMaster assigned to your team by the team captain, and the selected ship will be moved back out of the system prior to the match starting. You will of course not be able to remove a flagship from the field, we all do really want to see those expensive ships blow up, am I right?

We would however still like to hear your thoughts on this new mechanic, and how you think this may impact the tournament, for the better or worse.

Why turn everything into a slug fest? Many tactics need certain ships to become effective and one you lose one the whole thing falls down like a house of cards.

The result of this is no one is going to use them. They will only use close range brawl teams because it doesn't matter as much if you lose one before the start.

Welcome to the most boring tournament ever. Why not just give it to the team with the highest SP in gunnery?

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

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.

This is precisely what it is intended to do

This is precisely what it is intended to do

If you're unable to think creatively enough to change the tournament in a manner that would avoid previous tactics and theories, I'd suggest you ask your players for ideas.

All you have done is remove logistics from the tourney. Good job i guess?

This is precisely what it is intended to do

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 actually like the limited number of bans idea. Like 2?

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.

This is precisely what it is intended to do

Everyone save yours for Pandemic Legion and Goonswarm

edit- lmao we're still going to steamroll and win another 50 unique ships uncontested again

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.

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.

Did you guys forget this tournament should be about PvP and not about gimmicks?

How many at8 matches did not hinge on who killed the first logi?

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.

none of ours

IM IN AUSTRALIA, AND I STAY UP TILL ******* 4am IN THE MORNING, JUST TO GET ******* BANNED, **** THAT ****>>>>

Confirming that PL did not utilize logistics in its setups, nor target the logistics of the hostile fleet.

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.

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

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

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.

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.


JUSTICE

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?

"This sucks ur an idiot"

There's a lot of good dialogue here and I'd just like to take a second to note that what is helpful is an explanation of "why" you think the idea is bad. "This sucks ur an idiot" really doesn't provide anyone with any perspective other than the fact that you're a bad poster.

Please dont forget that you are also banning a PLAYER from the match, and not just the ship.... Like if we were fighting PL, or HYDRA.... I would make banning Shamis, or Garmon a priority over the ship!

Also WTH is with this automatic qualifier to the finals for the final four teams from last year? Does this mean we do not participate in the qualifiers? Does it mean we get #1 seeds in the four regions? And why? why should we get a bye, from last years status? Everyone should have to prove themselves again, including my team which was in the top four last year!

So, as you may have read in CCP Mindstar's latest dev blog, we have now introduced a new feature into the Alliance Tournament rules, namely the ability to remove a ship from the field before the battle starts.

The way banning works, is that prior to the match starting, after both teams have warped into the arena, you are given 2 minutes to decide which, if any, of the ships from the opposing team you would like to remove from the match. This pick has to be communicated to GameMaster assigned to your team by the team captain, and the selected ship will be moved back out of the system prior to the match starting. You will of course not be able to remove a flagship from the field, we all do really want to see those expensive ships blow up, am I right?

We would however still like to hear your thoughts on this new mechanic, and how you think this may impact the tournament, for the better or worse.

Please dont forget that you are also banning a PLAYER from the match, and not just the ship.... Like if we were fighting PL, or HYDRA.... I would make banning Shamis, or Garmon a priority over the ship!

Also WTH is with this automatic qualifier to the finals for the final four teams from last year? Does this mean we do not participate in the qualifiers? Does it mean we get #1 seeds in the four regions? And why? why should we get a bye, from last years status? Everyone should have to prove themselves again, including my team which was in the top four last year!

There is one or two small change/addition I would add.

[b]1) Once somebody has been ban selected they are immune for there teams next fight. I believe that would add another layer of tactic and indeed fairness to prevent greifing by constantly picking on XXX as it becomes some tornament meme. I'm sure you understand the logic there.

2) Team captains are imune also to this rule. Whilst this does somewhat water down this introduction it afford us as much fun and indeed more fun. Also makes sence and this rule change a bit more palatable too all.

There's a lot of good dialogue here and I'd just like to take a second to note that what is helpful is an explanation of "why" you think the idea is bad. "This sucks ur an idiot" really doesn't provide anyone with any perspective other than the fact that you're a bad poster.

There's a lot of good dialogue here and I'd just like to take a second to note that what is helpful is an explanation of "why" you think the idea is bad. "This sucks ur an idiot" really doesn't provide anyone with any perspective other than the fact that you're a bad poster.

I agree with this aswell, former glory is well and nice, but it shouldnt make you automatically better then the rest, hell, not with such a new and "exciting" as banning :'-(

Make it optional, ask the # 1-4 if they want to skip the pre rounds, id bet they dont even want it.

There's a lot of good dialogue here and I'd just like to take a second to note that what is helpful is an explanation of "why" you think the idea is bad. "This sucks ur an idiot" really doesn't provide anyone with any perspective other than the fact that you're a bad poster.

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

4 pages in a 6 page thread. Math.

:edit: also, I'm curious to see variety of opinion just as much as I am to see thoughtfulness in opinion.

:edit2: That's a p sweet avatar though

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

:edit: also, I'm curious to see variety of opinion just as much as I am to see thoughtfulness in opinion.

I've been in a few tournaments and absolutely love them, They're one of the great highlights or my Eve year. This banning idea is so bloody stupid I don't even know where to begin though. Whoever had this idea should be shoved over the edge of one of those volcanoes CCP has on their doorstep. How can you possibly think that giving a team the option to eliminate a key ship in the opposition team without firing a shot will make for better fights? It's an insane idea. Please CCP, drop this now before you ruin one of Eve's greatest spectacles.

Also WTH is with this automatic qualifier to the finals for the final four teams from last year? Does this mean we do not participate in the qualifiers? Does it mean we get #1 seeds in the four regions? And why? why should we get a bye, from last years status? Everyone should have to prove themselves again, including my team which was in the top four last year!

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

The 4 teams will get a direct spot in the group stages, they will not go straight to the final single elimination stage. You will still have to prove yourself, both in the group stages as well as in the elimination stage, to get a win.

4 pages in a 6 page thread. Math.

Out of curiosity..... Banning a player for doing nothing wrong!? There has to be something in the eula about this and as such I would raise hell if I was banned from anything in EVE because of "no reason"

http://www.eveonline.com/pnp/banning.asp - EULA on banning a player.


I know that paying for a service only to then be told I cannot use said service even when paid for is a criminal act!? Just saying....

Do you have a single reason why the idea is good?



Less interesting set ups mean fewer interesting matches to watch. Without logistics they will be shorter too, which perhaps fulfills some inner desire to appeal to outside of your target audience?

The entire logic ccp has offered is 'wouldn't it be cool if...'

No. No it isn't cool. It is dumb because it alters the correct/perfect tactics in an uninteresting way.

What does it add? It pisses off the guy who doesn't get to play. It pisses off a team for losing to something that is non-involving. It doesn't add anything for an audience to enjoy beyond discussion of whether the right ship was banned.

You want to have a discussion of why it is bad, then put yourself out there and suggest why on earth you think it is good. That way the terrible posters can illustrate why you are wrong whilst mashing their keyboard angrily. Change for changes sake is not a good argument.

+1 The implementation of the "banning" idea as currently presented is very bad.

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...

it makes for a lot more strategical options for both team FCs and the people who theorycraft setups

instead of planning the perfect team, you plan the one that can rely on missing a key ship, or you can gamble on your opponents picking the wrong ship to ban

suddenly choosing how to balance ecm and dps becomes a lot more complicated because having a dps ship banned will leave you without any offence

By variety of opinion I mean seeing what happens when you guys go to bed and more than 3 alliances give feedback.

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!

if you could ban 1 player in a football game you would always pick the goalkeeper

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

Are you trying to force me to explain that ban means from the match and not from the game or something I don't get the joke please deliver the punchline. :(

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.

EULA!

This is for you guys to argue guy.

ugh don't make me count

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