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

Greniard
Posted - 2011.06.19 22:48:00 - [91]
 

Originally by: Brett Lorenzo Favre
Stop the metagaming.
How?

Herping yourDerp
Posted - 2011.06.19 22:48:00 - [92]
 

in the point system each team can field 1 free ( point wise) tech 1 battleship

the flagship must be used during the final
possibly allow the flagship to be the free battleship, but a free balghorn would probably be OP.

but in the teams we saw, instead of filling up slots with sabres and stuff, one of them being a scorp, or an ECCM rohk or something to that effect could change the tournament completely.

Thresh Avery
Best Path Inc.
Cascade Imminent
Posted - 2011.06.20 02:24:00 - [93]
 

Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
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.




What i meant was that a well-thought out idea involving 3 Astartes (for example) may never be seen again due to the point penalty idea, however as it stands they are more viable. Having said that, it also means we may see less Minmatar rush teams, which would be a worthwhile outcome. As you know it's essentially a trade-off. I was just trying to point out the downsides.

I think if the points are re-balanced correctly - so making tier 1 bs 15 points, tier 2 bs 16 and tier 3 18, along with the other changes i stated in a previous post - and this penalty rule comes into play then there should be sufficient change to mix up the setups for next year. If the point penalty rule doesn't happen, then at the very least CCP should reduce the number of same ships from 3 to 2 again.

Veiam
Posted - 2011.06.20 02:42:00 - [94]
 

Well since so many people are defending the final as a preoper way to play EVE. I say we have AT X in some place that the general public is allowed. Open up a single system in jove space just for the duration of the tournament so that everyone can really get the entire met-game of EVE going.

Portmanteau
Gallente
CTRL-Q
Posted - 2011.06.20 02:52:00 - [95]
 

maybe teams could be given a pool of ships to select from on the day. benefits would include seeing less minmatar setups :) seeing the players actual pvp skill rather than practiced counters to setups they already know they will face etc etc

Leskit
The Night Wardens
Viro Mors Non Est
Posted - 2011.06.20 03:25:00 - [96]
 

some thoughts:

in relation to point value,
lower HAC cost
raise Recons by 1-2 points...fewer ecm teams
lower all battleship hulls by 1-2 points.
raise T3 hulls by 1-2 points.

Have a sliding scale for the most popular fielded ships. Take the top 3-4 ships [those specific hulls] (Sleipnir, tengu, cyclone by this year's statistics at http://at.eve-ic.net/9/?view=statistics&tab=ships&sortby=fieldednr&order=desc&range=all Shocked
and raise the point cost so we don't see the same setups each year. It was getting boring tuning in to see "another minmatar sleip team" or "another tengu team" Neutral

Do the opposite with the less fielded ships; take the bottom 10% and make them cheaper. Or maybe split the ship spread into fifths and take the second fifth [from the bottom up] and lower the point cost).

The overall effect would be to 'encourage' new setups instead of the tried-and-true (but getting boring) setups Twisted Evil. I'd bet money on more amarr/gallente fights that way too.
It's not as radical as it may sound, just changing points by 1-3 at a time to subtly influence things. Wink

Something more radical and devious would be to allow 1 logistics and 1 t3 with logistics on it, possibly for additional points. That would be dastardly YARRRR!!

Shegoba
Posted - 2011.06.20 04:10:00 - [97]
 

You can juggle with ship point allocations all you like, the best teams are all going to come to roughly the same conclusion as to the best set ups, but put something in there they have to react to on the spot and see how they respond. Now that would be a true test of skill.

As much as we want this to be akin to a sporting event, it never can, or will be. EvE is to old now and relations are long and deep routed, thus the 'metagame'.

So maybe some form of sleeper AI or WH annomoly to mix things up abit across the arena.

Leskit
The Night Wardens
Viro Mors Non Est
Posted - 2011.06.20 04:22:00 - [98]
 

Originally by: Shegoba
You can juggle with ship point allocations all you like, the best teams are all going to come to roughly the same conclusion as to the best set ups, but put something in there they have to react to on the spot and see how they respond. Now that would be a true test of skill.

Yeah, I can see that.


Originally by: Shegoba
So maybe some form of sleeper AI or WH annomoly to mix things up abit across the arena.


Fighting in WH environments....now that would be an interesting test of skill! ...but would be contested as to the end of time as no way to make it even/level/fair across matches, it would be more based on luck. An armor team in a pulsar? yeah right...

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.06.20 04:32:00 - [99]
 

Some thoughts:
- The high number of boundary violations indicates the arena is too small for faster ships. This was true several years back and it remains true today.
- Warp disruptors, dictors, and bubbles - essential parts of TQ PVP - are utterly meaningless. I suppose a big cause of this is that you would have to re-lock the enemy team as they warped in and out of the fight.

I contend that both of these problems can be solved by placing LCOs at each end of a very large grid-fu'd grid, and then using the watch list to keep track of everyone's health. On the plus side - it would be even more effective and foolproof than the lock system you're using now.

The problem then comes down to how to force people to fight and not waste everyone's time with Benny Hill antics as we saw a couple of tournaments ago. In that case, I think we'd be best off looking to FW style beacons with an extended "activation range".

I would also disagree with Mr. Rive's assertion that implants are effectively a non-issue, and would like to see pirate implants and deadspace modules allowed in the tournament for every pilot.

Neu Bastian
Minmatar
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2011.06.20 05:46:00 - [100]
 

Edited by: Neu Bastian on 20/06/2011 05:48:42
I like the idea that someone had a few post back, that'd it be awesome if the teams where given a pool of ships and mods shortly before the match to make their setups from.

Also T3's are kinda ubber in small gang and should cost more points.

Definitively add something about punishing those caught throwing matches. **** that "This is EVE" bull****, AT is about watching a good show, not conga lines and self destructs. Its boring enough when a team has gotten intel on what the other is gonna field and has a perfect counterRolling Eyes


Evlyna
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2011.06.20 05:55:00 - [101]
 

Originally by: Kil2

-It needs to be fun to watch!


That would kind of depend on your buddies not epically failing at the scenario they had to follow, huh?!

Wink

If there's any ATX (not that I would care), it should be player driven and prizes paid by the participants or a PLAYER/CORP/ALLIANCE sponsor from their pocket. Not by CCP.

CCP can enforces rules, gives arenas, etc., but they should not create Isks/ships anymore for something they will never control and making an alliance suddenly that rich with created Isk.

Don't remember the prizes of the first tournaments, but the prizes of the latest one is simply ridiculous. What will be the prizes of the ATXX at this rate?

It's a PVP tournament, not a lottery.

Father Fondle
Posted - 2011.06.20 06:10:00 - [102]
 

Originally by: Evlyna
It's a PVP tournament, not a lottery.


You got it right.

The reason why we got PL and Hydra (and prolly others) send several teams was the insane prizes.

I don't think that alliances would bother to put so much time and effort into metagaming either, if it wasn't for the monetary value of the tournament.

Get rid of the RL prizes and the zillion ISK prizes and BPCs ---> make the tournament real again.

Vaarun
Amarr
The Night Crew
Posted - 2011.06.20 06:39:00 - [103]
 

Originally by: Greniard
Originally by: Brett Lorenzo Favre
Stop the metagaming.
How?


Easy.

You submit a lists of ships. That is your list of ships for the rest of the tournament. If a pilot cannot make it, someone can replace him in the exact same ship. Thsi is a test of how well you fly your ships and work together in combat. It's not about who will lose all their scruples to use inside info to defeat a specific opponent by tailoring ships and fits to beat them.

No substitutions means no chance for metagaming to enter into it. If you play the same ships with the same mods there is no way to swap things around. You enter you best team with your best strategy with allowed ships and take anything that comes along.
This may also force the ECM to either go multispecs or multi-racial, either way reducing the effectiveness of ECM as they cannot "magically" pick all the right ECM for their next opponents.


Blind the brackets.

When coming in to a match, there are two opponenets you can fight. You won't know who until after you submit you final ships for that round. All 4 teams will be ready and then learn who they will fight when they take the field.

Metagaming is all about exploiting weaknesses ans strengths based upon information and adapt ships to deal with that. Take that away and we get ships that have to be fit to deal with anything. Besides, when you are on a roam, do you get a week to gather info and fit ships to counter who you meet?

I am unsure if the rules do it, now, but while you can bring 3 of one ship, the 2nd and 3rd of the same types should cost extra.


Fred Barbossa
Free Mineral Collective
Posted - 2011.06.20 06:55:00 - [104]
 

Originally by: Vaarun
Originally by: Greniard
Originally by: Brett Lorenzo Favre
Stop the metagaming.
How?


Easy.

You submit a lists of ships. That is your list of ships for the rest of the tournament. If a pilot cannot make it, someone can replace him in the exact same ship.



You realize that metagaming is 99% knowing that list of ships rite?

Imryn Xaran
Caldari
Coherent Light Enterprises
Posted - 2011.06.20 07:54:00 - [105]
 

A few of the matches were decided by pilots accidentally going out of bounds. How about if instead of popping them for that they get jammed until they are back in bounds? That way they are penalised for their mistake (can't shoot and still taking damage) but it isn't necessarily so catastrophic that the team can't recover from it.

The other thing is metagaming. This goes on in all sports all the time, and is such a part of eve that it couldn't be eliminated even if they wanted to. The difference between AT and other sports is that nobody "in the know" talks about the metagaming. If CCP assigned a couple of people to activly spy on teams in game, if they offered in game rewards for information leaks, if they embedded reporters in each team camp, if they got panel experts who were more willing to talk about this, it might give the viewers more insight into the "behind the scenes" activities and thereby make it more interesting. I felt for you Kil2, knowing more than you could say and having to keep quiet, and perhaps it might be more interesting if they could find a non partisan expert to talk exclusively about the metagaming aspects, along with lots of juicy gossip and speculation, just as they do with real world sports.

Tappits
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.06.20 07:56:00 - [106]
 

Get rid of logistic ships.
Flag ships can be anything not just a BS.
Lower Points for BS


Naomi Knight
Amarr
Posted - 2011.06.20 07:57:00 - [107]
 

Originally by: Veiam
Well since so many people are defending the final as a preoper way to play EVE. I say we have AT X in some place that the general public is allowed. Open up a single system in jove space just for the duration of the tournament so that everyone can really get the entire met-game of EVE going.

this , thou should be within jumprange

Kagumichan
Degenerate Corp
Get Off My Lawn
Posted - 2011.06.20 08:10:00 - [108]
 

Edited by: Kagumichan on 20/06/2011 08:10:33
Originally by: Neu Bastian
Edited by: Neu Bastian on 20/06/2011 05:48:42
I like the idea that someone had a few post back, that'd it be awesome if the teams where given a pool of ships and mods shortly before the match to make their setups from.

Also T3's are kinda ubber in small gang and should cost more points.

Definitively add something about punishing those caught throwing matches. **** that "This is EVE" bull****, AT is about watching a good show, not conga lines and self destructs. Its boring enough when a team has gotten intel on what the other is gonna field and has a perfect counterRolling Eyes




Problem with an idea like that, though it's a good idea, is small alliances and roleplay alliances may not have pilots with the required ship skills or weapon skills to be able to field a good setup. In doing so it pushes out those small alliances that want to take part and favours the larger alliances with a large amount of players in them. I like the idea though, it has potential, and with some work could spawn a good rule-set to stop these repeat setup teams, 'cos minmatar rush teams got old and stale real fast.

Tappits
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.06.20 08:30:00 - [109]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine

Quite a few ship costs need rebalancing but thats covered by other posters here nicely.

My main criticism/advise would be to ditch the pre-qualifier / group stuff and just run the whole show as a 128 team max knockout tournament out of the gate.

128
64
32
16
8
4
2

Just run it like the FA cup. Past winner and runner up automatically gets into the draw - otherwise allow 126 teams to put in a billion isk stake and just turn up and try their luck. If you have difficulty with televising of first round then so be it the 64v64 first weekend could be un-broadcast. But broadcast all the rest of the matches to the final.

This would as mentioned earlier in the thread remove some of the metagaming / fixed matches and return the tournament to a pure spectacle where the winner needs to win 7 straight matches - the maximum number of potential teams get to enter - and there is giant-killing opportunity for no-namers against the big boys from week 1.

I feel in recent years the focus on points manipulation and complicated pre-qualifying rounds have detracted from the pure spirit of the tournament which is "win your match".





I would like to see this.

Greniard
Posted - 2011.06.20 08:36:00 - [110]
 

Originally by: Portmanteau
maybe teams could be given a pool of ships to select from on the day. benefits would include seeing less minmatar setups :) seeing the players actual pvp skill rather than practiced counters to setups they already know they will face etc etc
By your logic, the less options there are, the harder those options are to counter... Well thought out.

Greniard
Posted - 2011.06.20 08:45:00 - [111]
 

Originally by: Imryn Xaran
A few of the matches were decided by pilots accidentally going out of bounds. How about if instead of popping them for that they get jammed until they are back in bounds? That way they are penalised for their mistake (can't shoot and still taking damage) but it isn't necessarily so catastrophic that the team can't recover from it.
How to win with these rules: alpha one enemy ship, burn away from opposing team into next grid so they can't shoot you, wait till time runs out. Great idea.
Quote:

The other thing is metagaming. This goes on in all sports all the time, and is such a part of eve that it couldn't be eliminated even if they wanted to. The difference between AT and other sports is that nobody "in the know" talks about the metagaming. If CCP assigned a couple of people to activly spy on teams in game, if they offered in game rewards for information leaks, if they embedded reporters in each team camp, if they got panel experts who were more willing to talk about this, it might give the viewers more insight into the "behind the scenes" activities and thereby make it more interesting. I felt for you Kil2, knowing more than you could say and having to keep quiet, and perhaps it might be more interesting if they could find a non partisan expert to talk exclusively about the metagaming aspects, along with lots of juicy gossip and speculation, just as they do with real world sports.
So team would just have to take agreements out of game. Damn. That would change everything! Shocked
_

Also people who suggest for the ship pool and or setup be limited to one and only thing encourages metagaming even more, since if you know your opponents setup before the tournament you can counter them all you want. And it wouldn't do anything to fixed matches or putting more teams in, which is what everyone is actually whining about.
Also how is it fair to force, say a player who's flown gallente for 8 years, to suddenly swap into minmatar?

Terianna Eri
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
Posted - 2011.06.20 08:49:00 - [112]
 

Edited by: Terianna Eri on 20/06/2011 08:59:56
Originally by: Liang Nuren
I would also disagree with Mr. Rive's assertion that implants are effectively a non-issue, and would like to see pirate implants and deadspace modules allowed in the tournament for every pilot.


I, too, would like to see teams that don't have the money to faction/deadspace fit every one of their ships to be at a huge disadvantage not only in the performance of similar setups but also in the lack of ability to field those setups that really rely on very expensive kit to operate.

Wait, no. That's one of the worst ideas I've ever read, and I spend a lot of time on the internet. I thought you were smart, Liang?


I do think that the hardwirings add very little to the tournament. They don't make substantial changes to the operation of your setups: A Sleipnir pilot with +5% hardwirings will fly the ship the same way they would with 3% or without implants. All they do is make it that much easier for larger, wealthier alliances to get an edge over smaller, less wealthy ones. If the best hardwirings were only 20-30 mil then it wouldn't be an issue, but a full set of +5% hardwirings for a Sleipnir costs something like 600 million - 2-3x as much as the hull + fittings, and it's way easier to swap out your ship than to swap out your implants.
Also, because for any given setup there's rarely an important decision to be made about which implant should be put in a given slot, it's not like there's any interesting decisions when considering implants. It's as simple as "pay isk receive advantage."

There are other changes that could be made to improve the tournament in more substantial ways, but "no hardwirings except mindlinks" would be a good change, even if it would mean that I wouldn't be able to use my beloved +3% grid implants.


EDIT for more content:

Unlike a lot of people I do not like the "increasing point cost for multiple ship" idea. While it will discourage setups like 3x sleipnir + stuff, 3x Tengu + stuff, etc that we've come to get very, very familiar (read: bored) with, it also similarly discourages most well-coordinated setups, since generally even if you're not fielding rush setup 320 or kite setup 105 you'll have some plan that will include 3 ships that are the best at executing your plan (for example if you're fielding a blaster setup you are probably using 3x proteus, since it's the best ship for the job). This will especially hurt setups that use ships that are uniquely suited for their role: If you don't want to field 3x Sleipnir you can still field Hurricanes, Cyclones, Claymores, etc. If you don't want to field 3x Proteus, your alternatives look a lot worse as it is BY FAR the best blaster ship in-game.

I think a much better idea is to periodically adjust the point costs of the most and least used ships between tournaments, or even, if you dare, between weeks of the tournaments - get on the ball and post something sunday night so that teams can readjust their setups for the following saturday. There are a couple ways this can be done - adjusting individual ships, adjusting ship classes, etc. I actually think the best way to do it is not to follow a strict rule and do it by ships - if Cyclones (f.ex) are popular but show up in a variety of different setups, maybe leave them alone, but with something like a Sleipnir that really dominates the setup they're in, go after it specifically.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.06.20 09:25:00 - [113]
 

Originally by: Terianna Eri

Originally by: Liang Nuren
I would also disagree with Mr. Rive's assertion that implants are effectively a non-issue, and would like to see pirate implants and deadspace modules allowed in the tournament for every pilot.


I, too, would like to see teams that don't have the money to faction/deadspace fit every one of their ships to be at a huge disadvantage not only in the performance of similar setups but also in the lack of ability to field those setups that really rely on very expensive kit to operate.

Wait, no. That's one of the worst ideas I've ever read, and I spend a lot of time on the internet. I thought you were smart, Liang?



A few comments:
- While you can claim that 3% or 5% here and/or there doesn't make a difference, I would say you are RESOUNDINGLY incorrect because getting to your opponent 5% faster can mean landing a web 5% faster. Mixing percentages and absolutes will never "wash out" in the way you guys claim.
- My small pirate corp can afford to buy T2/pirate ships and faction/deadspace fit them. Don't even tell me that alliances can't afford to splash a bit of faction in places that will make a difference. Rolling Eyes
- Ultimately, the core problem is that the alliance tournament and TQ have diverged rather dramatically in ship capabilities because of silly restrictions like pirate implants and faction/deadspace modules. There are LOTS of cheap faction/deadspace modules too, and they make a world of difference in your fittings and effectiveness.


Quote:
There are other changes that could be made to improve the tournament in more substantial ways, but "no hardwirings except mindlinks" would be a good change, even if it would mean that I wouldn't be able to use my beloved +3% grid implants.


That would actually be an example of a god awful ****ing ******ed change. Fitting implants are bog standard on damn near every fit I've seen fielded lately... and a change like that would do nothing but further divorce ships fielded in the alliance tournament from anything resembling what these ships can do on TQ.

I thought you were smart. Rolling Eyes

-Liang

flapie 2
Gallente
Posted - 2011.06.20 09:44:00 - [114]
 

Edited by: flapie 2 on 20/06/2011 09:47:21
1) Make sure only 1 alliance can enter (yes also check if they trained together to make a rigged match, check iff they dint split up on forehand etc, etc, etc, ban metagaming)
2) Do not allow anny matches to be sold out, bribed or annything of that kind and punish acordingly.
3) Lower the points on flag-ships, so we get to see these "awesome" ships a bit more.
4) Make the grid a bit bigger (50-75km), for some reason it feels so small, and seems so easy to scoot outside it with a kitting team. I think vieuwing the matches isnt a problem, tho the camera angels seem to be tho from time to timeYARRRR!!)
5) Battleships ...... hmmm there was a lack of this if you dont count the lolmatches (including the final) maybe lower point, im not really sure if it works but its worth a try.
6) Capitals i would like to keep this sorta open, maybe well someday see Capitals that are more "tournament fit" so to speak and its then more of a option to field them. But as they are now they are not "fun" to watch in match id agree on that.

The Tournament should be about pilot skills, not on how big your wallet or influance is.
Witch sadly enough has been the case for several years now, even tho this new bracket sytem would have brought more "competetion" and "fun to watch" moments to the event. Sadly enough it kinda failed at it since some people get more joy out of metagaming.

I really hope someday the old style fights (You know the once we had around edition 1/2/3, the once i liked to watch) wil come back and no this push and pull politics and forum PvP. Until then ill keep an eye on changes, but i wont join the stream again untill it changed.

Just my 2isks.

*edit* maybe lowering the prices would be a good start to make metagaming less atractive.

Benedict Starkiller
Posted - 2011.06.20 09:46:00 - [115]
 

There are some easy fixes to stop some of the blatant match throwing:-

1) A self-destruct loses the team points value of the ship lost as well as giving the opponent the same points as a kill.
2) A boundary violation loses the team points equal to the value of the ship destroyed.
3) CCP Adjudicator reviews matches and can ban teams blatantly fixing a match ( stops the final debacle as both would be disqualified and forfeit all prizes ). Teams will then need to think more creatively about how they throw a match so as not to get banned and ejected from the tournament.

Greniard
Posted - 2011.06.20 09:50:00 - [116]
 

Originally by: flapie 2
1) Make sure only 1 alliance can enter (yes also check if they trained together to make a rigged match, check iff they dint split up on forehand etc, etc, etc, ban metagaming)
ok so they can't train together. Only share all possible intel. Makes a huge difference surely...
Quote:
2) Do not allow anny matches to be sold out, bribed or annything of that kind and punish acordingly.
So they just have to cover it up better. fixes the prob... no wait.
Quote:
3) Lower the points on flag-ships, so we get to see these "awesome" ships a bit more.
One good idea in your post! \o/ (altho sort of contradicts with your later statement that the tournament should be less about isk...)
Quote:
4) Make the grid a bit bigger (50-75km), for some reason it feels so small, and seems so easy to scoot outside it with a kitting team. I think vieuwing the matches isnt a problem, tho the camera angels seem to be tho from time to timeYARRRR!!)
and make kiting teams even more powerful :(
Quote:
The Tournament should be about pilot skills, not on how big your wallet or influance is.

Beating all teams up to the finals with pilots split into two teams doesn't show that they have pilot skills? wtf?

Greniard
Posted - 2011.06.20 09:53:00 - [117]
 

Edited by: Greniard on 20/06/2011 09:55:07
*removed*
quoted from another thread and the response came here... cool.

Elayae
Gallente
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
Posted - 2011.06.20 10:00:00 - [118]
 

Just an idea, nothing fancy. Very Happy
-introduce 2 bunkers, one for each team
-the bunkers can be shot at giving points in some sort of formula to a team
-the points gained from shooting the bunkers will be added to the ship points
-points on the bunker can only be gained when a team has less then or an equal amount of ships in comparison to your opponent

Imryn Xaran
Caldari
Coherent Light Enterprises
Posted - 2011.06.20 10:15:00 - [119]
 

Originally by: Greniard
How to win with these rules: alpha one enemy ship, burn away from opposing team into next grid so they can't shoot you, wait till time runs out. Great idea.
Quote:


Guy who is out of bounds can still be shot, he just can’t shoot back. Also, the pilot would be warned by the GM who is jamming him and if he didn’t immediately turn back towards the in play area he would be popped.

Originally by: Greniard
So team would just have to take agreements out of game. Damn. That would change everything! Shocked


Most already are. CCP actively encouraging 3rd parties to spy and report would be new, and might give the viewer’s more insight into what is, or might be happening behind the scenes.

One other thing that is easily doable is to add a “requirement to fight” rule. Allow the GM who is refereeing the match to disqualify any team who, in his opinion, is not fighting to the best of their ability. It wouldn’t eliminate thrown matches but it would get rid of travesties like conga lines and last night’s final.

flapie 2
Gallente
Posted - 2011.06.20 10:19:00 - [120]
 

Originally by: Greniard
Originally by: flapie 2
1) Make sure only 1 alliance can enter (yes also check if they trained together to make a rigged match, check iff they dint split up on forehand etc, etc, etc, ban metagaming)
ok so they can't train together. Only share all possible intel. Makes a huge difference surely...
Quote:
2) Do not allow anny matches to be sold out, bribed or annything of that kind and punish acordingly.
So they just have to cover it up better. fixes the prob... no wait.
Quote:
3) Lower the points on flag-ships, so we get to see these "awesome" ships a bit more.
One good idea in your post! \o/ (altho sort of contradicts with your later statement that the tournament should be less about isk...)
Quote:
4) Make the grid a bit bigger (50-75km), for some reason it feels so small, and seems so easy to scoot outside it with a kitting team. I think vieuwing the matches isnt a problem, tho the camera angels seem to be tho from time to timeYARRRR!!)
and make kiting teams even more powerful :(
Quote:
The Tournament should be about pilot skills, not on how big your wallet or influance is.

Beating all teams up to the finals with pilots split into two teams doesn't show that they have pilot skills? wtf?



Post on you main or GTFO trolling this thread kktnxbb


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