| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 43 post(s) |
Mes Ren
No Trademark
   |
Posted - 2008.11.28 17:13:00 -
[91]
 Originally by: KTOZ
Originally by: Mes Ren
I personally hope that someone is stupid enough to field 9 ishtars against us. I definately hope they are dumb enough to use gardes. There are a number of different ways to defeat the 9 Ishtar build, the key is a good understanding of the game mechanics. Even the brute force route will work quite well. ie. 5x Pulse Geddons, triple trimark with 5x bouncer II's. Warp in a 0km, the max distance the IShtars can be is 50km away. The Ishtars will melt very quickly, even if they are using TD's. Just my 2 cents.
Ok then how you will know that the opponents will bring 9 ishtars while you bring those 5 geddons?
coz i ( as many other ppl) know tons of other setups which will eat the 5 geddons alive as well.. So we shouldnt talk about countering specific setups with other specific setups.. You cant take the risk an say "hay this time i feel like they ll bring 9 ishtar, and we are gonna melt them with our 5 geddons!! " Thats the good side of the allience tournement, you wont know what you will face tomoro 
Honestly, I put a build up there that would beat the 9 Ishtar rather easily, but I would never field myself (for the obvious reasons you just mentioned). My point was that there are a number of ways to beat the 9 Ishtar build. In fact, I don't expect to see a 9 Ishtar build from anyone other than the most inexperienced teams, for the very reasons that you won't see a 5 geddon build -- too many holes. I do expect to see variation of the 9 Ishtar build, such as 6, 7 and 8 Ishtar builds with support ships filling the balance. These will be builds that will be difficult to deal with.
________________________
No Trademark -- Mes Ren, Mes Builder --
-- CEO --
|
|
CCP Claw
|
Posted - 2008.11.28 17:15:00 -
[92]
Originally by: Necronus
Does your quite active response to whiners mean that Tourney rules are not final? :)
I've only changed the rules where people have mentioned changes that I was already considering and had dropped - people being both people here on the forum and at CCP.
I'm open to considering changes to any rules that I feel are broken; however, most things have already been considered, so its unlikely there will be anything other than major changes (or clarifications/wording changes).
Also don't forget that, as someone has already mentioned in the thread, that the aim of rules changes isn't necessarily to stop certain setups or promote others, but to prevent homogenisation and the iteration of successful setups. Changing things up keeps things fresh and keeps us all guessing at who is going to field what, which makes for a better tournament!
|
|
Sally Bestonge
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.11.28 17:33:00 -
[93]
Originally by: CCP Claw
Originally by: Necronus
Does your quite active response to whiners mean that Tourney rules are not final? :)
I've only changed the rules where people have mentioned changes that I was already considering and had dropped - people being both people here on the forum and at CCP.
I'm open to considering changes to any rules that I feel are broken; however, most things have already been considered, so its unlikely there will be anything other than major changes (or clarifications/wording changes).
Also don't forget that, as someone has already mentioned in the thread, that the aim of rules changes isn't necessarily to stop certain setups or promote others, but to prevent homogenisation and the iteration of successful setups. Changing things up keeps things fresh and keeps us all guessing at who is going to field what, which makes for a better tournament!
The fact that you have rules governing a pvp contest in such as way to make it "fair" is dumb.
|
Necronus
Amarr
Monks of War
United Legion
|
Posted - 2008.11.28 17:52:00 -
[94]
Edited by: Necronus on 28/11/2008 17:57:11
Originally by: CCP Claw
Originally by: Necronus
Does your quite active response to whiners mean that Tourney rules are not final? :)
I've only changed the rules where people have mentioned changes that I was already considering and had dropped - people being both people here on the forum and at CCP.
I'm open to considering changes to any rules that I feel are broken; however, most things have already been considered, so its unlikely there will be anything other than major changes (or clarifications/wording changes).
Also don't forget that, as someone has already mentioned in the thread, that the aim of rules changes isn't necessarily to stop certain setups or promote others, but to prevent homogenisation and the iteration of successful setups. Changing things up keeps things fresh and keeps us all guessing at who is going to field what, which makes for a better tournament!
Thus , too drastic changes can brake the balance. (remember Maulus zerg on IV tourney,altering possible combinations of already pretty balanced ship bandwitch is more safe than ultimate increase in ammount with hope of total carnage, imho)
Come on , be honest this tourney rules are made by Nathans team of TOTALHELLDEATH expansion? :D
|
Nkalv
Free Lapland
The Kadeshi
|
Posted - 2008.11.28 17:54:00 -
[95]
I think you should looker over the combat arena system. As someone who used speed last tourny i can tell you its a mess to try to keep an eye one beacon whit 8 of them on the overview. If the overview wasnt so prone to moveing stuff around whitout reason it wouldnt be a problem but right now it is.
Why not put fights into seperate systems, have 1 beacon for the fight and let the teams gather at planet 1 and 2.
|
Popsikle
Minmatar
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.11.28 18:34:00 -
[96]
Originally by: StoreSlem
Edited by: StoreSlem on 28/11/2008 13:23:21
Originally by: CCP Mindstar
With five empty midslots, the Ishtars would drop like flies.
fixed
edit:
Sentry ishtars also can't be caught at a range disadvantage because they can fit both gardes, wardens, and some novelty ogres or warriors. If, as you mentioned, the ishtars end up starting 100km away from 5 sniper bs you would still look at a 2:1 dps advantage, with wardens having a much easier time hitting bs than bs hitting ishtars. If we could have warpins that would guarantee you to be 200km+ away from the opposition team, yes then ishtars have a counter.
BS snipers hitting sentries? With a few BS snipers with 2-3 weapons groups on each you can easily drop the number of sentries you are facing in half within the first few minutes of the engagement...
____
<t20> i want to be in a manager potition at Hooters
<SaraDawn> Garthagk, do you have it up ?
<Garthagk> I can get it up anytime. |
Endless Subversion
The Accursed
|
Posted - 2008.11.28 18:40:00 -
[97]
Why are marauders the same point cost as t1 BS?
Surely this is exactly the same problem that t2 rigs and pirate implants pose, that is, costing too much for some of the underfunded guys?
|
Tobias Lee
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.11.28 19:15:00 -
[98]
Yup i can foresee teams fielding 5 mauraders easily specially since they can tank better on their own and cap charges are allowed.
|
Chronos VIII
Amarr
Malevolent Evolution
The Church.
|
Posted - 2008.11.28 19:25:00 -
[99]
Originally by: StoreSlem
Originally by: Mes Ren
I personally hope that someone is stupid enough to field 9 ishtars against us. I definately hope they are dumb enough to use gardes. There are a number of different ways to defeat the 9 Ishtar build, the key is a good understanding of the game mechanics. Even the brute force route will work quite well. ie. 5x Pulse Geddons, triple trimark with 5x bouncer II's. Warp in a 0km, the max distance the IShtars can be is 50km away. The Ishtars will melt very quickly, even if they are using TD's. Just my 2 cents.
18 td's or rsd's / 5 armageddons -> tachyons hit well at 50km? arma can lock at 50km?
I'm thinking that sentry drones alone aren't a big problem, it's more when they are coupled with 375m3 drone bay ship with damage bonus + plenty ew + nimble sig res tanking. Everyone who are stuck on the Gardes also forget that Ishtars have enough drone bay to efficiently deal good damage anywhere from 0-125km. Simply, 11 points for an Ishtar is a super bargain, while noone are going to pay 11 points for an eagle or cyclone.
In the end it's not really unfair seeing how everyone who want just can field those 9 ishtars and be at an advantage against most everyone who don't, but how can it be more exciting watching 9 ishtars hours on end than 7 sb's / 2 logistics?
Listen to this man, he knows whats he talkin about. Just outta interest mes ren, gimme a setup that will easily counter 9 ishtars + navy vexor with damps/tracking disruptors. Please enlight me.
Chronx
|
Charlie Luciano
The Administration
Cosa Nostra.
|
Posted - 2008.11.28 19:25:00 -
[100]
Originally by: CCP Claw
Originally by: Necronus
Does your quite active response to whiners mean that Tourney rules are not final? :)
I've only changed the rules where people have mentioned changes that I was already considering and had dropped - people being both people here on the forum and at CCP.
I'm open to considering changes to any rules that I feel are broken; however, most things have already been considered, so its unlikely there will be anything other than major changes (or clarifications/wording changes).
Also don't forget that, as someone has already mentioned in the thread, that the aim of rules changes isn't necessarily to stop certain setups or promote others, but to prevent homogenisation and the iteration of successful setups. Changing things up keeps things fresh and keeps us all guessing at who is going to field what, which makes for a better tournament!
You guys have said stuff like that every single time you make changes to the rules, and every single tournament the same thing happens where people find a few good setups and we'll end up with the homogenous finals that you seem to fear so much.
It's all fine wanting to make the tournament perfect for the viewers (let's face it - changes to the ruleset are just a matter of making the matches more appealing to EvETV viewers), but I have a hard time believing that the last tournament wasn't a success in terms of entertainment value. Yes there was a few stalemates, but most matches actually proved quite interesting to watch, even with dual logistics. If you really wanted to give the viewers more action, why not lower the duration of each fight thereby forcing the teams to field more dps if they want to annihilate their opponent.
As has been the case so many times before - it wont be the players but you guys who makes the tournaments less interesting to watch by constantly trying to prevent homogenisation and the iteration of successful setups. It will always happen so don't try to avoid it...
On a sidenote - what the hell has CCP come to allowing someone like Faildown to be part of their Dev-team? 
_____________________________
A Parola d'onuri vali sangu |
Valrandir
Gallente
Blood Inquisition
|
Posted - 2008.11.28 19:45:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Charlie Luciano
Originally by: CCP Claw
Originally by: Necronus
Does your quite active response to whiners mean that Tourney rules are not final? :)
I've only changed the rules where people have mentioned changes that I was already considering and had dropped - people being both people here on the forum and at CCP.
I'm open to considering changes to any rules that I feel are broken; however, most things have already been considered, so its unlikely there will be anything other than major changes (or clarifications/wording changes).
Also don't forget that, as someone has already mentioned in the thread, that the aim of rules changes isn't necessarily to stop certain setups or promote others, but to prevent homogenisation and the iteration of successful setups. Changing things up keeps things fresh and keeps us all guessing at who is going to field what, which makes for a better tournament!
You guys have said stuff like that every single time you make changes to the rules, and every single tournament the same thing happens where people find a few good setups and we'll end up with the homogenous finals that you seem to fear so much.
It's all fine wanting to make the tournament perfect for the viewers (let's face it - changes to the ruleset are just a matter of making the matches more appealing to EvETV viewers), but I have a hard time believing that the last tournament wasn't a success in terms of entertainment value. Yes there was a few stalemates, but most matches actually proved quite interesting to watch, even with dual logistics. If you really wanted to give the viewers more action, why not lower the duration of each fight thereby forcing the teams to field more dps if they want to annihilate their opponent.
As has been the case so many times before - it wont be the players but you guys who makes the tournaments less interesting to watch by constantly trying to prevent homogenisation and the iteration of successful setups. It will always happen so don't try to avoid it...
On a sidenote - what the hell has CCP come to allowing someone like Faildown to be part of their Dev-team?
no
This has surpassed the Yarrdware specification and has been dubbed Uberware. |
ookke
GreenSwarm
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.28 20:12:00 -
[102]
Last years tourney was boring to watch, agreed. But I think banning remote repping completely is a bit drastic, I don't think Green Alliance vs. Notoriery for example was boring at all to watch(1 logistics vs. 0 logistics, lots of remote rep mods in total). The whole match lasted maybe 5 minutes and was very entertaining. Without remote reps I think it would've all been over for us(Green) in about 2 minutes. Just nerf the dual(or god forbid, triple) logistics lineups by upping the logistics point cost a lot to say 40-50 points.
I doubt your commentators will even be able to keep up with matches of this new suggested format, they were missing details already last year and this year we might be looking at matches being over in less than 2 or 3 minutes.
|
Apocalypse Doom
|
Posted - 2008.11.28 21:16:00 -
[103]
With no remote reps, get ready to see drakes, nighthawks, vultures, oh and more drakes.
|
Santa Anna
Caldari
The Einherjar Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.11.28 21:49:00 -
[104]
There's no point listing for industrial ships. Are they not allowed, free, or just overlooked? |
csebal
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2008.11.28 22:12:00 -
[105]
I think the last tournament did strike a pretty good balance between tanking and ganking.. sure in the early matches you see lots of copycat tactics resulting in boring fights where one brings a setup that can't beat the other and they just sit there for half an hour.
Then again, towards the end people started to use their minds and there were some interesting GOOD fights to see.
as for the rules this time.. i cant say i agree with them 100%, but people will adept. We will see lots of ECM heavy setups for sure, as people will always go for 'staying alive', but i do think that winning will be a lot more about luck in your setup choice as there will be no 'on size fits all' setups this time..
In alliance tournament IV, there was the dual logi flawless setup that covered all the bases quite easily and was at least moderately good against almost every possible setup out there.
Then in tournament V they increased their cost and people had to change up their tactics resulting in the dual logi setups becoming vulnerable to certain tactics while still good against most others.
This time they killed dual logi / spider tanking which means that every time you go in there you are playing rock/paper/scissors. I can't say im happy about this.. as for me at least, finding the perfect setup in a tournament is all the fun there is in it.. Then again.. the challenge is up.. while i dont think that without logistic support or spider tanking there can be perfect setups, you can still create decent ones that have a better chance at dominating the opponent than getting eliminated by them.
Anyway.. moaning about the rules is pointless.. just check them out, and adept to them. It's EVE after all.. adept or die.
My post does not represent the general or official opinion of anyone else besides me. No matter what YOU believe.
Phear the arrows of the HUNs >>----> |
Frostowl Farrunner
|
Posted - 2008.11.28 22:54:00 -
[106]
I agree with the one of each type of hull. Homogenous setups don't make for a fun tournament. |
Random Womble
Minmatar
Master Miners
|
Posted - 2008.11.28 23:39:00 -
[107]
Not allowing logistics modules is silly TBH the tourny is about teamwork. As for BSs just sitting there with 2 remote reps each so what a rook can jam 2 BS (3 if lucky) the rest of a team could out DPS the rest and they are hardly likely to be able to come up with a sustainable setup for the whole of a fight. All your doing is reducing the possible options so you will see endless samey samey setups yes you get that to an extent anyway sometimes but the last tourny there were plenty of surprises and one off setups that were effective even in the later stages plus there tended to be a rock, paper, scissors thing going on.
Ways to kill logistics:
Jam
Pure DPS
Neut (yes if its dual gaurdian or dual basilisk thats hard but still possible and just make it very had to field dual logistics as for BSs neuting works rather well)
That should be enough no need to remove a module and by doing so making 4 ships (especially IMHO the scimitar and oneiros) next to useless.
Also with regards to the dates i dont suppose their is a chance of putting it back a week or two as many of us studying at uni have exams around that time.
|
Sigras
|
Posted - 2008.11.28 23:48:00 -
[108]
ok, first off . . . LOVE the fact that the tourney is back; it made me cry so please dont take the following statement as a lack of appreciation.
I believe that not allowing logistics is a serious error in judgment;
yes i understand that the hard tanking battleships would be ridiculous to break with 5 of them on the field but this wide reaching nerf means that any frigate sized ship is effectively useless.
Warden II s can effectively track and hit an AB'ing frigate at 90 km with only one omnidirectional tracking link.
I know you said that CCP didnt like how the last tourney became a tank fest, but this nerf is not allowing effective use of all the ships; not to mention that a lot of the ability to fly a fleet in real PvP depends on logistics.
I propose only allowing remote armor/shield transfers ONLY be allowed on logistics cruisers, and their points cost be increased to 25
this would allow for the logistics ships to still be a viable option but severely reduce the damage output of the fleet fielding it.
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Zzz
|
Posted - 2008.11.29 00:11:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Santa Anna
There's no point listing for industrial ships. Are they not allowed, free, or just overlooked?
Quote:
4. The ship points table is as follows, ship types not listed in the table are not allowed:
...and the table does not include industrials, rookie ships, shuttles, freighters, capital ships etc...
---
Can't afford that BPO? Look here.
20:1 mineral compression
The EVE f@h team |
Random Womble
Minmatar
Master Miners
|
Posted - 2008.11.29 00:20:00 -
[110]
Originally by: FugginNutz
I, for one, support T2 sentries. Some Gallente folk I know have over 6mil sp in just combat drones alone, so why not allow them the opportunity to use the skills they spent months training for?
Ya'll ***** when the PVP tourney wasn't going to be held but when CCP decides to have it, ya'll ***** about the rules.
The rules set by CCP are simple. Adapt or Die. 
You mean like how some people max out their logistics abilitys (crazy i know but some of us do) dont get me wrong thats no why i disagree with the logistics thing i can fly other ships maxed out.
Also i was just wondering about the cost of recon ships i mean sure the curse might have a use and the rook but i dont see the huginn/rapier (especially post speed nerf) or the arazu/lach being much use and even the curse and rook without logistics are so paper thin i really dont think they are worth 16 points when other T2 cruisers are so much lower oynx for example could have huge HP tank like a beast and ignore the curses tracking disruptors while neuting has little effect yes ok there will be other ships there doing DPS but still relatively recons are not that useful without logistics.
|
Talsha Talamar
Amarr
Nebula Rasa Holdings
Nebula Rasa
|
Posted - 2008.11.29 01:17:00 -
[111]
Yeah.. sure.. So you would field an Abaddon instead of a Paladin then?
With the current point costs,
the lack of remote repairing and
the inclusion of rigs, especially T2 rigs,
there is no reason why pirate implants or
boosters should not be allowed.
The financial cost for the participation,
especially for smaller alliances is rather unbearable.
Originally by: Kayosoni
Originally by: Talsha Talamar
21 - Battleship, Faction
19 - Battleship, Tech 1 & 2
Hmm are you sure you want a marauder to cost as many points as a T1 bs ?
That pretty much removes the point of bringing any T1 BS to the field.
Yes.. they are more easy to jam, but they have the tank from hell.
Also with regards to this, pricing Faction ships higher than T2 battelships,
is a bit questionable to me.
marauders are crap.
|
Roemy Schneider
BINFORD
|
Posted - 2008.11.29 01:25:00 -
[112]
Originally by: CCP Claw
12 - Logistics Cruisers
1.1. ááAll Remote Armor Repair modules and Remote Shield Transfer modules are NOT allowed.
sure... that drone bonus is really something :roll:
-
putting the gist back into logistics |
ookke
GreenSwarm
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.29 01:28:00 -
[113]
Originally by: Talsha Talamar
Yeah.. sure.. So you would field an Abaddon instead of a Paladin then?
With the current point costs,
the lack of remote repairing and
the inclusion of rigs, especially T2 rigs,
there is no reason why pirate implants or
boosters should not be allowed.
The financial cost for the participation,
especially for smaller alliances is rather unbearable.
Almost got a haiku there 
Originally by: CCP Claw
Updates and Changes
28/11: Disallowed named drones and T2 rigs. Altered Heavy Interdictor points down to 14. Various wording changes.
try again :)
|
Shinma Apollo
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.11.29 02:28:00 -
[114]
Are remote structure reps allowed? 
|
Bull Frog
Amarr
Dirt Nap Squad
Dirt Nap Associates
|
Posted - 2008.11.29 03:13:00 -
[115]
To clarify a winning condition, do you have to have a ship left on the field to be declared winner?
If not, 10 Frigates/destroyers that take down a single faction BS, yet all die themselves could technically win, which would be hi-larry-us.
Your signature has been proven to be the cause of node crashes and immense lag. -Kreul Intentions |
Sigras
|
Posted - 2008.11.29 03:24:00 -
[116]
Originally by: Bull Frog
To clarify a winning condition, do you have to have a ship left on the field to be declared winner?
If not, 10 Frigates/destroyers that take down a single faction BS, yet all die themselves could technically win, which would be hi-larry-us.
Originally by: CCP Claw
3. Unused points will be added to the opponents score.
|
Bull Frog
Amarr
Dirt Nap Squad
Dirt Nap Associates
|
Posted - 2008.11.29 03:25:00 -
[117]
Thanks, didn't see it.
Your signature has been proven to be the cause of node crashes and immense lag. -Kreul Intentions |
Sigras
|
Posted - 2008.11.29 03:44:00 -
[118]
np
|
Vassai
Caldari
Terracorp Inc.
Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.29 04:50:00 -
[119]
Ships like Bhaalgorn, Machariel, Ashimmu, Phantasm etc are considered as faction or as pirate? In other words, are they allowed or not?
|
Kadoes Khan
|
Posted - 2008.11.29 05:00:00 -
[120]
Quote:
1.1. All Remote Armor Repair modules and Remote Shield Transfer modules are NOT allowed.
I don't understand why logistics cruisers are 12 points considering this restriction. First off it's akin to saying a megathron can't use turrets but regardless... If you want to make things more "exciting" which personally I think you've done the opposite you should seriously consider a reduction in point cost to 5-8 range as that's about how useful they are if that.
-=^=-
"Someday the world will recognize the genius in my insanity." |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |