| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vivien Sureflight
Blood Money Inc.
The Blood Money Cartel
2
   |
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:08:00 -
[1] - Quote
Remember that Hero-tanking Curse from AT7? Or the suicide neut-Abaddon? Remember BoB's "unbeatable" team? Remember all those Frekis?
Of course you do. Because they were interesting.
I'm sure you also remember all those fleets of Caracals that dominated AT6; one missile-spamming team after another slowly chewing through each others' tanks until the buzzer blew, or the 10x Thorax rushes that, while fast-paced, had as much ingenuity as the itsy-bitsy spider. You remember those matches because they were... what's the word? Ah, right: "Boring."
Simply put, what makes the alliance tournament fun and interesting for the viewers are inventive setups and tactics that utilize ship synergies to devastating effect. One example that comes to mind is the death from above. setup fielded in AT8; while it didn't do exceedingly well, the spider tank that they generated even with the single-logistics rule was quite impressive, and proved to be an unexpected win against Noir. But this setup was such that if any ship was removed (aside from the Daredevil or Badger, arguably), the tank would begin to collapse and the DPS would soon drop to 0. It was a setup in which every ship played an integral role, a setup that was born from months of testing and theorycrafting. But with these new banning rules, a setup such as that would never be fielded unless the team wanted to throw the match. When each ship fills a specific niche in the team, the loss of any of them right from the start is simply unacceptable. As a theorycrafter, not being able to rely on any given ship actually being present in the match vastly reduces one's ability to be inventive.
Teams play to win, and the only thing this banning rule does is support generic teams of 10 gank cruisers, or 6+ BCs, etc.; teams in which the loss of any given ship would go relatively unmarked. Teams aren't going to field interesting (i.e., vulnerable) setups just to make the viewers happy. If this rule stays in, I predict even more of last tournament's "Minmatar Gunboating" squads at every level of play, and as a pirate, I must protest. We see that **** every day in low-sec; at least CCP could encourage some thoughtful deliberation in this sandbox game of theirs that is full of "endless possibilities".
And as to whether a team should even use the banning rule in the first place? The simple fact of the matter is that everyone will. Teams are competing with each other, not against some objective standard, so they only need to beat each others' scores. If every team uses the banning option, then the points gained from a given win will almost always be on par with the other teams are getting. Only if a significant number of teams forgo the the use of the Banning Rule and win regardless (unlikely, but theoretically possible) will other teams even consider forgoing the rule's use.
The only thing this rule does is homogenize the playing field. And let's be honest, homogeneity is never interesting.
Please, please, I beg of you to reconsider this horrible idea. And I also encourage other pilots to share their opinions on the subject here.
Viv out. |
Jovan Geldon
Lead Farmers
Kill It With Fire
1
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:19:00 -
[2] - Quote
I agree with a lot of the above. All that's going to happen is that nobody will field logistics because they will be insta-banned by the other team, so the only setup that will work is homogenous "tank 'n gank" ships that will not affect the overall balance of the teams if removed. The synergy and teamwork aspect will largely be lost because you cannot rely on any one particular ship being available; it will turn it from "one team versus another team" into "9 ships versus 9 other ships", which is a major step backwards in my opinion. |
Admiral Goberius
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
4
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:35:00 -
[3] - Quote
Jovan Geldon wrote:I agree with a lot of the above. All that's going to happen is that nobody will field logistics because they will be insta-banned by the other team, so the only setup that will work is homogenous "tank 'n gank" ships that will not affect the overall balance of the teams if removed. The synergy and teamwork aspect will largely be lost because you cannot rely on any one particular ship being available; it will turn it from "one team versus another team" into "8 ships versus 8 other ships", which is a major step backwards in my opinion.
not a bad point
should make the logi also immune to banning, then things get interesting
alternatively allow 2 ships to be banned (full ******)
but seriously, game mechanic wise allowing 1x of a special ship (logi) then giving players 1x ban choice is a bit dumb
would be like allowing a ban in football game and expecting teams to not ban the goalkeeper |
Kumq uat
Guiding Hand Social Club
Dystopia Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 19:12:00 -
[4] - Quote
It is just a terribad idea. A lot of the really cool teams are set up so each ship has a synergistic effect on the others. The above posters are right in that it will just turn into a tank and gank fest. It will dumb down the theory crafting and high level setups in favor of meh setups that can stand having one taken away. Just a terrible terrible idea. |
Podcat
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
0
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 20:28:00 -
[5] - Quote
wow this is a terrible terrible idea. It will effectively be a nerf to setups using clever synergy between ships (remember we cant do redundancy with 2x logis etc). so pretty much what we are going to see is generic same-ship setups and the otehrs FC being banned every single time. its also a hit vs battleships and teams fielding fewer members as well so even less BS this year :(
please reconsider and come up with something else, or drop this whole thing. it will make for much worse viewing.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |