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) |
Mistress Juggs
|
Posted - 2008.11.30 10:17:00 -
[151]
I really feal that removing Logistics removes a major tactically element to the battles, instead of banning remote reps why not instead let them cost extra point to fit like 1, 2 and 4 points for small, medium and large?
|
|
CCP Mindstar
|
Posted - 2008.11.30 10:50:00 -
[152]
I think its worth noting that Logistics as a tactic is by no means banned. It is still quite possible to repair each other.
The only thing banned here are remote repair modules -- |
|
Necronus
Amarr Monks of War United Legion
|
Posted - 2008.11.30 10:57:00 -
[153]
Edited by: Necronus on 30/11/2008 10:59:31 Edited by: Necronus on 30/11/2008 10:58:22
Originally by: CCP Mindstar I think its worth noting that Logistics as a tactic is by no means banned. It is still quite possible to repair each other.
The only thing banned here are remote repair modules
If you mean drones, than ECM or Damage drones will make more worth than logistic ones. And why do you need nerfed logstic ship when you can field a HAS, which can outdamage 10 times the ammount that can be healed by logistic ship? Tracking bonus and capacitor bonus you say? Huh , how do you suggest those ships to stay alive to give those bonuses when enemy can field insane ammount of DDs :)
p.s: you will not see "winning" setup with logistic ships, Imho.
|
Pistonbroke
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.11.30 12:19:00 -
[154]
Ships with Dual reps, or oversized shield boosters supported by cap flinging logistics should be able to tank pretty effectively, especially given that missiles have been reduced in effectiveness somewhat.
I look forward to seeing how this all pans out
|
Sigras
|
Posted - 2008.11.30 12:23:00 -
[155]
Originally by: CCP Mindstar I think its worth noting that Logistics as a tactic is by no means banned. It is still quite possible to repair each other.
The only thing banned here are remote repair modules
LOL 9 Ishtars with Heavy Armor Maintenance Bot II FTW!
do you honestly see that happening? and can armor bots really keep frigates alive?
Originally by: Pistonbroke Ships with Dual reps, or oversized shield boosters supported by cap flinging logistics should be able to tank pretty effectively, especially given that missiles have been reduced in effectiveness somewhat.
I look forward to seeing how this all pans out
Until the defenseless logistics ships get killed because they have no tank . . .
|
Laechyd Eldgorn
Caldari Art of War Exalted.
|
Posted - 2008.11.30 13:04:00 -
[156]
you can cap transfer still? dual shield boosters? ^^
|
Pistonbroke
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.11.30 13:31:00 -
[157]
quote=Sigras]
Until the defenseless logistics ships get killed because they have no tank . . .
Yes, of course you cant fit a dual rep setup on a Guardian, or a large Booster II on a basilisk.
And no, of course they don't have enough cap recharge to support running such a tank..
|
Sigras
|
Posted - 2008.11.30 13:55:00 -
[158]
Originally by: Pistonbroke Yes, of course you cant fit a dual rep setup on a Guardian, or a large Booster II on a basilisk.
And no, of course they don't have enough cap recharge to support running such a tank..
1. this still doesnt help frigates, which is my main/only gripe
2. 550 DPS under primary fire from 9 HACs or 5 Battleships or 9 BC with no ECCM isnt a tank, its an appetizer |
Random Womble
Minmatar Master Miners
|
Posted - 2008.11.30 14:01:00 -
[159]
Edited by: Random Womble on 30/11/2008 14:02:21
Originally by: Pistonbroke quote=Sigras]
Until the defenseless logistics ships get killed because they have no tank . . .
Yes, of course you cant fit a dual rep setup on a Guardian, or a large Booster II on a basilisk.
And no, of course they don't have enough cap recharge to support running such a tank..
You can fit dual reps or large or even XL booster but the tank wont be that good even still and you dont need a logistics for the cap tranfer really since yes that was good when it created cap for the logistics to use with its remote reps or occasionaly for a curse now since all tanks are local just 1 maruader with a cap transfer and all those cap boosters in its hold can keep, combined with the other ships own injector, quite happily anoher maruader boosting all day and thats if you even need that at all. The tank on the logistcs wont get near that the DPS a maruader or probably even a HIC could tank and if you fit those spare slots with guns the DPS it does will be minimal oh and only 2 logistics have a cap transfer bonus anyway.
Also to Mindstars "were not disallowing logistics as a tactic just the modules" by disabling those modules you pretty much remove 95% of logistics tactics you also do, especially with the current price in points, make the ships with that name attached to them redundant. |
manufactorin Marlin
|
Posted - 2008.11.30 14:08:00 -
[160]
hmm time to test on sisi:-) 5 golems with both FOF and faction cruise missiles. with rigs they can even make a decent cap bouncing setup so will have more than enough cap, maybe enough for dual x-large rep. And with repper drones they should have an insane tank. just don't know if they can fit it. |
|
Cmndr Griff
Opinicus Operations Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2008.11.30 14:18:00 -
[161]
I reckon the new rules are awesome. Logistics IS dull to watch, and if anything the new rules will mean more spectacular, pacey fights. Paladins can be jammed very easily so I think the point system there is fine. No doubt there will be a lot of EW throughout the tournament.
P.S. NOTR i'm expecting more Phantasms and Nightmares, by far the coolest team fielded in a tournament last year and great to watch. |
McFly
C0LDFIRE RUDE Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.30 14:36:00 -
[162]
I was at first thinking 2x Curse, 1x Guardian, 5x Ishtar... if logistics are needed all three of these ships can drop maintenance bots. Curses keep the bad stuff away + tracking disruptors, Ishtars drop sentries for DPS, Curse can field T2 Meds, and keep logi's in the Guardian, if needed an Ishtar will scoop up his Sentries and redeploy some Heavy Armor bots to help. Or each Ishtar fields 4 sentries and 1 armor bot at a time.
I know everyone wants to see lots of things explode, but going all out gank with thoraxs I dont think is going to work again....
But since all the backlash on the ishtar in the thread I dont think we'll be fielding that setup. Maybe switch it up for some cerbs, rooks and an Onyx, lots of missile spam, some ECM and an even 100pts as to not let any out. But whatever, there will be some very interesting setups this year, and I think the fights will be much quicker than previous tourneys.
** Everyone get that backup TS/Vent server dusted off just in case the main DC's on you. GL all. |
|
CCP Claw
|
Posted - 2008.11.30 17:06:00 -
[163]
Originally by: Sigras
2. 550 DPS under primary fire from 9 HACs or 5 Battleships or 9 BC with no ECCM isnt a tank, its an appetizer
Because being repped by a logistics helps frigates survive a lot better when under the guns of 5 battleships, right? :)
Logistics is still a perfectly viable tactic...it's just not *the* tactic anymore.
|
|
Ni Nee
|
Posted - 2008.11.30 17:26:00 -
[164]
I would like to suggest an additional rule.
Like to see bonus points, like an extra 10 point (110 total) to a team which field ships all of one race. Think this would add alot of flavor to the turney.
Thanks
|
james126
|
Posted - 2008.11.30 18:06:00 -
[165]
Originally by: Ni Nee I would like to suggest an additional rule.
Like to see bonus points, like an extra 10 point (110 total) to a team which field ships all of one race. Think this would add alot of flavor to the turney.
Thanks
or alow enough room to fit 10 drakes instead
|
XFreedomX
|
Posted - 2008.11.30 19:48:00 -
[166]
Finally, ccp will see first hand how powerful falcon's are in small engagements. I predict most good team will field 3.
|
Sigras
|
Posted - 2008.11.30 22:23:00 -
[167]
Originally by: CCP Claw Because being repped by a logistics helps frigates survive a lot better when under the guns of 5 battleships, right? :)
Logistics is still a perfectly viable tactic...it's just not *the* tactic anymore.
Linkage Destiny vs The Five day 1 Fight 11 Morsus Mihi vs ROADKILL day 1 Fight 15
need i go on?
|
Tanis Vaperstrome
|
Posted - 2008.11.30 23:20:00 -
[168]
Bombers are allowed... What about bombs themselves?
|
|
CCP Claw
|
Posted - 2008.12.01 10:45:00 -
[169]
Originally by: Tanis Vaperstrome Bombers are allowed... What about bombs themselves?
Disallowed. Updated.
|
|
Charlie Luciano
The Administration Cosa Nostra.
|
Posted - 2008.12.01 10:57:00 -
[170]
Edited by: Charlie Luciano on 01/12/2008 10:57:11
Originally by: Sigras
Originally by: CCP Claw Because being repped by a logistics helps frigates survive a lot better when under the guns of 5 battleships, right? :)
Logistics is still a perfectly viable tactic...it's just not *the* tactic anymore.
Linkage Destiny vs The Five day 1 Fight 11 Morsus Mihi vs ROADKILL day 1 Fight 15
need i go on?
Your post makes no sense since neither of those matches had a massive amount of damage being tanked by a single frigate. However at the same time Claws argument is flawed as it is not only quite possible to tank 5 bs in a single frig with some help from logistics, it's actually a viable tactic made useless with these changes - check out Cosa Nostra vs IAC maybe.
Oh well what can you do other than adapt... After all the alliance tourney has never represented PvP in its true form, so why change now? Hell - allowing Claw in on the planning of this only confirms what we already know - it's not about the quality of PvP or the knowledge of the people commenting/arranging it, just the public appeal. Unless of course the ability to cast spells and swing a sword at dwarves count as expertise in internet spaceships... _____________________________
A Parola d'onuri vali sangu |
|
Garia666
Amarr T.H.U.G L.I.F.E White Core
|
Posted - 2008.12.01 13:58:00 -
[171]
to me its still confusing.. you can add an logistics ship? but no with remote reppers?
Is that correct? www.garia.net |
|
CCP Mindstar
|
Posted - 2008.12.01 14:30:00 -
[172]
Originally by: Garia666 to me its still confusing.. you can add an logistics ship? but no with remote reppers?
Is that correct?
This is correct. You can still use tracking links, cap transfers, remote repair drones etc. -- |
|
QwaarJet
Gallente hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.12.01 15:11:00 -
[173]
Good post Charlie, agreeing with most of what you say.
|
|
CCP Mindstar
|
Posted - 2008.12.01 15:39:00 -
[174]
Originally by: Charlie Luciano Your post makes no sense since neither of those matches had a massive amount of damage being tanked by a single frigate. However at the same time Claws argument is flawed as it is not only quite possible to tank 5 bs in a single frig with some help from logistics, it's actually a viable tactic made useless with these changes - check out Cosa Nostra vs IAC maybe.
Either way - the point you make merely highlights what the remote repping ban in this tournaments rules is aiming to achieve - the fact that even frigates can indefinitely tank heavy damage output with the help of logistics. Yes it is a viable tactic, and yes these changes are there because we don't want this tactic used. It has been used to death in the last three tournaments and it is time for something new.
Like it or not, we want to see what pans out when this option is not available. -- |
|
Charlie Luciano
The Administration Cosa Nostra.
|
Posted - 2008.12.01 17:36:00 -
[175]
Edited by: Charlie Luciano on 01/12/2008 17:39:39
Originally by: CCP Mindstar
Originally by: Charlie Luciano Your post makes no sense since neither of those matches had a massive amount of damage being tanked by a single frigate. However at the same time Claws argument is flawed as it is not only quite possible to tank 5 bs in a single frig with some help from logistics, it's actually a viable tactic made useless with these changes - check out Cosa Nostra vs IAC maybe.
Either way - the point you make merely highlights what the remote repping ban in this tournaments rules is aiming to achieve - the fact that even frigates can indefinitely tank heavy damage output with the help of logistics. Yes it is a viable tactic, and yes these changes are there because we don't want this tactic used. It has been used to death in the last three tournaments and it is time for something new.
Like it or not, we want to see what pans out when this option is not available.
Why not just make everyone fly what you would consider to make the best fights for the viewers then? Maybe something like this:
1) There may be a max of 10 players on each team 2) Players may only fly Battleships 3) Said Battleships may only be gank-fitted 4) ??? 5) Profit
The mindset for most people, when they come up with tactics for the alliance tournament, have always been about high survivability (be that through E-War/Logistics/whatever), it has rarely been about the gank. What makes you think this will be in any way different just because you disallow logistics? People will still aim for high survivability and instead of having interesting matches like CON. vs Phalanx Alliance (Yes I fought on that team so obviously I use our fights as example) where it was ECM vs Logistics, we'll just have ECM vs rigged super-tanks/ECM/whatever, and you'll have achieved nothing at the end, apart from another thing to remove from the next tourney because you don't want that tactic used...
EDIT: In the end, should it not be up to us - the participants - to figure out how to beat the logistics setups instead of you deciding that we can't figure out a way to beat them? _____________________________
A Parola d'onuri vali sangu |
Eluhaf
|
Posted - 2008.12.01 18:12:00 -
[176]
Will this tournament use a beta version of a "tournament tool" that I have heard mentioned as being on the development path?
|
ArmyOfMe
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.12.01 18:51:00 -
[177]
can you please explain to me the reason why pirate implants isnt allowed?
Originally by: deadmaus
Because by the time we had calmed Plague down after he heard BoB were back in the vicinity it was too late to do anything |
|
CCP Mindstar
|
Posted - 2008.12.01 19:18:00 -
[178]
Originally by: Charlie Luciano The mindset for most people, when they come up with tactics for the alliance tournament, have always been about high survivability (be that through E-War/Logistics/whatever), it has rarely been about the gank. What makes you think this will be in any way different just because you disallow logistics? People will still aim for high survivability and instead of having interesting matches like CON. vs Phalanx Alliance (Yes I fought on that team so obviously I use our fights as example) where it was ECM vs Logistics, we'll just have ECM vs rigged super-tanks/ECM/whatever, and you'll have achieved nothing at the end, apart from another thing to remove from the next tourney because you don't want that tactic used...
EDIT: In the end, should it not be up to us - the participants - to figure out how to beat the logistics setups instead of you deciding that we can't figure out a way to beat them?
I actually agree with most of what you are saying here. It is true that people always aim for survivability, that gank setups are a bit uncommon in tournaments thus far. In the past couple of tourneys, this has indeed manifested itself as a dual logistics rep fest. We fully expect that there will be teams that create new and improved ways of keeping the whole team alive with this new set of rules.
Ultimately, I really am not a fan of banning any module or tactic - and if it were a tournament that focused solely on challenging fights for its participants then yes, there is no real reason to have anything banned. The fact of the matter is quite simply that the tournament is not just about the people competing - but also about providing entertainment for the thousands of people watching the tournament online. We need a set of rules here that will be interesting and challenging at the same time.
With that, we had a long discussion about points, tactics, what is / isn't allowed in the tournament and for what reason. This got us to what was initially posted, and the stuff discussed on this forum so far.
It should be pointed out too, that we are by no means adding to lists of things that are to be banned for all time from tournaments. ECM, for instance, was not a part of the first 3 tournaments, but it is in now. Why? because there are more ships on the field, and even a totally ECM based team can run into issues with this. Without ECM, you could never have such amazing upsets as when SF smashed BoB with their 10 thorax setup in tournament 4.
So for this tournament, with the larger number of battleships potentially on the field, we feel that remote reps will simply lead to too much spider tanking to be interesting to watch. Spider tanking will still be possible through the use of maintenance bots, but these are vulnerable in their own right, and very interesting to watch as teams with an initially strong tank get picked off over time. The inclusion of rigs (previously banned) will help to offset this a bit, as they will allow ships to boost their individual tanks / hp by a margin.
-- |
|
Gian Bal
Minmatar Laughing Leprechauns Corporation Lotto Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.12.01 19:50:00 -
[179]
Hi,
could I please ask for some clarification with regards to the battle arena, perhaps even a small diagram to show the 8 beacons and their respective ranges from each other.
Many thanks in advance.
Gian Bal
|
Sphynx Stormlord
Gallente Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2008.12.01 19:52:00 -
[180]
Sugestion: Limited number of logistics modules. Eg max of 4 logistics modules per team. Or logistics modules cost 2 points each.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |