open All Channels
seplocked EVE Alliance Tournament Discussion
blankseplocked Lets talk about rules for ATX
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6

Author Topic

Drakprime
Caldari
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2011.06.18 22:32:00 - [61]
 

I'd be interested in an IROC of EVE, each team (must) field ships from specific pool(s) equipped from specific pool(s). Perhaps a set pool (30 ships?) for the full tournament?

Two step
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2011.06.18 22:35:00 - [62]
 

I'd like to see larger groups and have some sort of wildcard scheme for advancement, which would mean fewer pointless matches. Groups should be ranked not by win/loss but by points. You already have a bonus to points for winning. I also would like to see the number of ships of the same class reduced down to 2, which should remove some of the ECM/Damping.

Chidori kun
Minmatar
Starship Operating BastardZ
Posted - 2011.06.18 22:55:00 - [63]
 

Edited by: Chidori kun on 18/06/2011 22:56:00
Edited by: Chidori kun on 18/06/2011 22:55:47
I see a lot of nice idea's floating around and can say some are great.
But with one thing I agree Ewar, although I wil not say take it out because it's part of pvp
some restrictions would be wise.
Why? Because it's less a roll of the dice thing or who locks faster.
This is the second tournament where some fights are pretty boring, lock down the logistics ship and it's a free for all.

I agree also do something about the points system make it possible to get some more ship classes in the mix.
Because in the end somehow all teams end up doing the same thing.

A other thing what can mix things up a all out interceptor fight with no Ewar or any fast moving class but the idea is both teams show up
in the same class and just slug it out and let the best team win :)

But fiddling with the points would be a good start and restricting Ewar.

Chid.

Thresh Avery
Best Path Inc.
Cascade Imminent
Posted - 2011.06.19 05:33:00 - [64]
 

Originally by: veldftw
how about making the ship points cost rise if u bring more than 1 of the ship.

1 sleip will cost 16 points
the second will cost 18 points
the third will cost 20 points

however u can still bring 1 sleip, 1 claymore and 1 nighthawk for 16 points each


This is a good idea for balancing out setups so that we may still see 3 Sleipnirs alongside a Minmatar rush whilst also being able to see a Sleipnir, Claymore and Nighthawk if teams feel that the point penalty isn't worth it.

My only concern is that it would discourage the use of a well-thought out setup due to repitition - which is obviously the point! But there's a downside. In a way it makes setups like the Minmatar rush still viable due to how powerful Sleipnirs and Sabres are, but it means we'll never see the likes of 3 Proteus, Dominix or Abaddons in a setup, whereas currently they are still viable for the points they cost.

The other thing is that it may make the smaller ships too expensive to field duplicates of as they initially cost much less. It's still a great idea but perhaps the rule should be expanded on?

Example rule:

Ships and Points

8. Fielding multiples of the same ship will increase the point value each time. This applies to specifically named ships only.

8a. Fielding more than one of the same ship that costs equal to or above 10 points (i.e. Tier 1 Battlecruisers and above) will incur an increasing point penalty of 2 each time - eg. 3 Rooks = 13 + 15 + 17.

8b. Fielding more than one of the same ship that costs less than 10 points (i.e. T1 Cruisers and below) will incur an increasing point penalty of 1 each time - eg. 3 Taranis = 3 + 4 + 5.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.06.19 08:15:00 - [65]
 

Originally by: Thresh Avery
...My only concern is that it would discourage the use of a well-thought out setup due to repitition...

Afraid we are long past that. You mean repetition like half of all gangs being Matar rush teams and half of the remainder being Caldari spammer/kiter teams?

FoTY is so strong this time around that it even managed to dwarf the missile spammer setups that have been prevalent in previous tournies which is quite an achievement.

Escalating costs is a good idea to make people actually think about what they bring, but it shouldn't kick in from ship one but rather from ship two.
Ships spammed are generally high dps birds so doing it at one will decrease viability of too many compositions.


Sollana
Amarr
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2011.06.19 11:18:00 - [66]
 

Preliminaries 5vs5
T1 cruisers, frigates and destroyers
No logistics
Smaller arena

Group Stages 10vs10
No logistics,
No Handicap
win or lose Brawl
NO EWAR

Finals 10 vs 10
Anything Goes, no restriction

No limit of number of ships or types of ships unless stated

The Great Leader
Posted - 2011.06.19 12:07:00 - [67]
 

Edited by: The Great Leader on 19/06/2011 12:08:19
Keep the current format, however expand prequalifiers so that most applicants will get a chance to fight for a group stages slot. Give eight guaranteed slots to teams from last year and seed one in each group so we avoid the Group D situation from this year.

As for the rules, adjust the points for t3 up to 17 or 18. Pricing on both tech 1 and tech 2 battleships by tiers, Black Ops according to tier 1 BS and Marauders tier 2. Faction cruisers, HACs and HICs down by a point or two, logistics and recons up. No changes needed in the list of allowed modules, ships or implants.

GKO
Posted - 2011.06.19 12:08:00 - [68]
 

Hey Kil2, nice work so far!

If you offer bpcs for the winner/ 2nd place like cruiser/frig bpc, let the winner choose which one he wants. No more intentional losses in finals because you are trying to get a cetaint prize.

daint666
Minmatar
WEPRA CORP
White Noise.
Posted - 2011.06.19 12:30:00 - [69]
 

-Remove all implants other than fitting implants. (we spent 3 billion on ships compared to 20 billion on silly implants) Most alliances don't have the money like PL to throw at the alliance tournament. This meant that we could less afford to change our setup and be inventive because players already had 3 billion of implants in their head.

-Its been said a few times, but i like the +2 points to every similar ship fielded rule (not class, this may force people to use different races)

-increase point cost for logi, T3s and destroyers.
-decrease point cost for HAC, Faction cruisers to be the same as Tier1 BC

also, its been said before. 128 man instant knockout tournament sounds good, it'd prevent a lot of metagaming and promote the need to win the match.

Wyke Mossari
Gallente
Posted - 2011.06.19 13:11:00 - [70]
 


Delayed deployment.

Frigates arrive first, cruiser 30 seconds later, BS 1 min after start.

OnGrid
Posted - 2011.06.19 14:04:00 - [71]
 

Originally by: Wyke Mossari

Delayed deployment.

Frigates arrive first, cruiser 30 seconds later, BS 1 min after start.

While a nice idea it shows you didn't read the OP. The tournament system does not allow for warp-ins after the match starts due to locking/camera mechanics...

This applies to several other posts in this thread as well.

It's kind of sad though, as it could be interesting to see. The "hold the control point" mechanic used at the PvP tournament at Fanfest this year was a lot of fun to play and watch. The only problem was non-existent camera control. This does not make for good television.

On topic, I like the idea proposed several times in this thread, of increasing points cost for a ship type when fielding more than one.

DaShmoo
Chrome On All Merchandise
Posted - 2011.06.19 14:42:00 - [72]
 

the most "fair" way about doing things points wise is have EVERYTHING cost points. I'd hate to be the one figuring out the system, but like in Warhammer 40k, you pick armies by having a point limit, each type of unit has a point value and upgrades cost points.

Assign ECM's more points than a regular module if they're so OP (specially in 5v5).

This would allow you to assign every ship in the game a different point value.

this being said you probably would at that point go to a knockout style tourney and probably not use point values to determine things.

You'd see people using other ships probably enstead of the most OP for the point cost.


Maybe add more beacons? *shrug*

Rivulet
Posted - 2011.06.19 14:53:00 - [73]
 

I would like to see the size of the engagements scaled up as the tournament progresses. It would be fairly easy to do this under the current system using pilot and point limits. For example, say the preliminary qualifiers have a 15 point limits and 5 pilot maximum. The small scale initially would be nice for a couple reasons: 1) we would get to see more frigs/cruisers used in non-filler roles (maybe even limit hulls to Tech 1 at first?) 2) the initial fights would probably not last as long and would allow for an increased starting pool--we might get to see the qualifying games on EVE TV if this were the case.

I see this escalating throughout the tournament, increasing points and number of pilots allowed, until the quarter/semi/final matches end up somewhere slightly above the current system (150 points, 12-ish pilots).

I think it would be cool to see the various strategies and setups that would arise from the escalating scale system, and it would also add to the novelty of the tournament, since it would be unlikely to see the same setup or type of setup on multiple days.

Starsaber 1
Posted - 2011.06.19 19:05:00 - [74]
 

How about opening up what classes can be flagships? Maybe at least add Command Ships.

Wrayeth
EdgeGamers
Situation: Normal
Posted - 2011.06.19 21:59:00 - [75]
 

I mentioned this in another thread, but I'm pretty sure that one got buried somewhere.

I'd like to have the experts declare one ship the MvP of the tourney after evaluating all of the matches, then either disallow that ship in the next tourney or significantly increase that particular ship's points value. I believe this would result in more variation and innovation in the next tourney.

For my part, I'd have to call the sleipnir as the MvP in this tourney. It's really awesome to watch thanks to its speed, DPS and the awesome autocannon particle effects, but I got extremely tired of seeing it being fielded again and again and again.

Icylce
Frost Palace
Posted - 2011.06.19 22:02:00 - [76]
 

1. Banning for throwing/selling matches
2. No prizes for winning teams whatsoever maybe only special medal from ccp for first 3 places

Cyno Zicke
Posted - 2011.06.19 22:03:00 - [77]
 

BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS *snip* FINAL!!!!!!!!
*snip* Please try to keep it civil. Spitfire


Kunthea Dara
Posted - 2011.06.19 22:06:00 - [78]
 

In the final I think it should be a set fleet. So each team has the same ships and the same fits. This way it would be completely down to who were the better pilots and the better FC.

Would make things a little more interesting!

Faede Italh
Posted - 2011.06.19 22:06:00 - [79]
 

Originally by: Wrayeth
I mentioned this in another thread, but I'm pretty sure that one got buried somewhere.

I'd like to have the experts declare one ship the MvP of the tourney after evaluating all of the matches, then either disallow that ship in the next tourney or significantly increase that particular ship's points value. I believe this would result in more variation and innovation in the next tourney.

For my part, I'd have to call the sleipnir as the MvP in this tourney. It's really awesome to watch thanks to its speed, DPS and the awesome autocannon particle effects, but I got extremely tired of seeing it being fielded again and again and again.



+1

Chui Menta
Posted - 2011.06.19 22:06:00 - [80]
 

Originally by: Cyno Zicke
BAN HYDRA / BAN OUBREAK FOR THIS *snip* FINAL!!!!!!!!
*snip* Please try to keep it civil. Spitfire




I thought I'd quote this because it's true.

Caellach Marellus
Gallente
Nephtys Ventures inc
Posted - 2011.06.19 22:10:00 - [81]
 

Have a cap as to how much E-War you can bring, a point cap/ship cap combine, this is internal to the overall points/ships cap that teams can field and is not an extra allocation.

Naomi Knight
Amarr
Posted - 2011.06.19 22:10:00 - [82]
 

prize : take every assets from at9 winners(+alts) + free podkills on all finalist until they go back to 1 sp

Richecko
Posted - 2011.06.19 22:20:00 - [83]
 

Edited by: Richecko on 19/06/2011 22:20:36
I would ask CCP to have the dev's put some effort over the coming year to give the commentators a more detailed specialized info screen about the ship fittings, telemetry and the players skills & implants. As a player I learn a lot by listening to the commentary but often the commentators have to guess what modules or effects are being used by a team or player, how far away different ships are, whether someone's jammed etc... Their ability to tell the story of what's happening, and why, and if something new unique and clever is being done is limited by their current lack of real-time information.

Watching 2 years now, there is also no commentary about player skills ( skillbooks + levels ) and how that might influence or not-influence match results. Do the teams only send pilots with max skills or are skills a contributing factor -- we don't know.

Rgarcia
Posted - 2011.06.19 22:21:00 - [84]
 

Here is a crazy idea, take the tourney serious instead of being selfish and screwing Eve and Eve promoters.

Phoenix Xterra
Posted - 2011.06.19 22:26:00 - [85]
 

Rule #1 should be the removal of Kil2 from commentating. Having to listen to him whine about a match not being over yet is ridiculous. Having to listen to him whine while sitting between matches rolling his eyes at everything that CCP does needs to stop. CCP has a great team of commentators and fill in people, except for him. Use some professionalism. He doesn't even offer good analysis of what is happening.

Raynohr
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.06.19 22:26:00 - [86]
 

bring back the big ships.

kinda boring to watch this round dominated by BCs.

Gordon McClaine
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.06.19 22:28:00 - [87]
 

Ban Alliances from participating that throw matches.


Annie Seko
Posted - 2011.06.19 22:32:00 - [88]
 

Edited by: Annie Seko on 19/06/2011 22:32:57
How about simply not allowing the victory points to carry over from match to match and only be used to determine who winner of said match will be facing in the next round? Lowest scoring teams get dropped after each round and at the beginning of the next round everyone starts from zero again... Thus forcing them to fight if they want to move on.

Brett Lorenzo Favre
Caldari
Posted - 2011.06.19 22:34:00 - [89]
 

Stop the metagaming.

This is an official tournament where CCP SHOULD have control over the rules. In real life there are rules and a standard of sportsmanship teams adhere to in any type of real competition; you simply just don't throw a match in official events hosted by professional organizations. In EVE, sure, in normal everyday EVE you want to promote the idea of anything goes, but in a real officiated match, there needs to be rules and sportsmanship maintained.

Reilly Duvolle
Posted - 2011.06.19 22:42:00 - [90]
 

Edited by: Reilly Duvolle on 19/06/2011 22:50:56
Basically I think we need to recognize that the arena tourney format is fundamentally different than the sandbox "normal" EVE format. The tourney isnt "real EVE". It isnt a sandbox. It is a arena format designed to showcase "FAIR FIGHT PVP". Basically its the same thing as the difference between WAR and SPORTS. In war, everything goes. Not so in sports. And the AT IS a E-sport event.

Alliance tournaments showcase EVE online for new players and provide entertainment for tens of tousands of viewers. Alliances primarily participate to make a name for themselves and (since AT7) to get lots and lots of isk in the form of isk + unique blueprints.

After the finals, I have become convinced that some of the metagaming going on really crashes violently with the entertainment part of the tourney. In short, watching rigged matches like 0utbreak vs Razor, Circle-of-two vs Wild Boars and ofc the finals with Hydra vs 0utbreak simply isnt good TV.

The question is, how do you discourage that kind of behaviour? Well, the easiest solution is to replace isk and valuable ships with non-monetary prizes like a monument or something like that. That would leave e-honour as the primary goal for alliances, potentially reduce the investement some teams are now putting into winning the tourney and thus make poorer alliances able to compete, and not affect other parts of the metagame (spying etc).


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only