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 - 2011.06.20 10:22:00 - [121]
 

Originally by: flapie 2
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
No u!

Also not surprised you don't actually have any counter arguments. So just makes it even more fun for me. :)

El'Niaga
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.06.20 10:26:00 - [122]
 

Edited by: El''Niaga on 20/06/2011 10:27:42
New format is what is needed, while it would not completely eliminate the metagaming it would reduce it and reduce the impact of it.

No more passes in prequalifyings. Everyone has to start from the start and make it to the finish.

Single elimination. You lose your out.


64 alliances battle (32 matches)
32 winners then battle (16 matches)
16 winners then battle (8 matches)
8 winners then battle (4 matches)
4 winners then battle (2 matches)
2 Winners then battle for Final ( 1 match)

63 matches total.

No more point jockeying so no more like in groups Razor and Outbreak positioning themselves by changing who they'll fight in brackets, in this style brackets you can't do that.

Set it up with North Division (includes Caldari Space), South Division (Amarr Space included), East Division (Minmatar Space included), and West Division (Gallante Space Included).

Empire alliances are in the division where the HQ of the executor corp was located at least 90 days prior to the tournament.

Wormhole alliances are randomly placed in a division.

0.0 alliances are in the division that relates to their sov space (or rented space). Those that could be one or the other may choose which division they are in.

16 teams in each division.


South fights East Division in one Semifinal (Eastern Champion fights Southern Champion...going along the old Minmatar vs Amarr rivalries)

North Fights West Division in second Semifinal (Caldari vs. Gallente old rivalries)

Basically it would like kinda like a NCAA tourney chart :).

(This format is also easily scaleable, you could start with 128 alliances or even 256)

flapie 2
Gallente
Posted - 2011.06.20 10:28:00 - [123]
 

Edited by: flapie 2 on 20/06/2011 10:30:11
Edited by: flapie 2 on 20/06/2011 10:29:23
Originally by: Greniard
Originally by: flapie 2
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
No u!

Also not surprised you don't actually have any counter arguments. So just makes it even more fun for me. :)


A second so orginal reply, you must be studying at some really important college.
Im not afraid to not explain something to you btw, nor do i have to.

*edit* damn that typo*

Kagumichan
Degenerate Corp
Get Off My Lawn
Posted - 2011.06.20 10:29:00 - [124]
 

Go back to limiting the amount of ship types allowed in each team \o/

Then we'll see more battleships and less of these Sleipner/Cyclone heavy minnie rush teams.

Greniard
Posted - 2011.06.20 10:40:00 - [125]
 

Originally by: flapie 2
Im not afraid to not explain something to you btw, nor do i have to.
*stupid pyramid limits*

Of course you don't. That'd be silly. I was just hoping you would put some effort into your reply like I did. Sad

TheGunslinger42
Posted - 2011.06.20 10:47:00 - [126]
 

Do something to stop boring 3 rook 3 kitsune teams. I'd also like to see a bit more from battleships, rather than 3 bc hulls being nearly always a better choice

flapie 2
Gallente
Posted - 2011.06.20 10:47:00 - [127]
 

Originally by: Greniard
Originally by: flapie 2
Im not afraid to not explain something to you btw, nor do i have to.
*stupid pyramid limits*

Of course you don't. That'd be silly. I was just hoping you would put some effort into your reply like I did. Sad


Iff there was a good point to the effort then maybe yes.

Nehaj
Amarr
Posted - 2011.06.20 11:36:00 - [128]
 

Only the winner should win the prizes. But to do so, they should face Team CCP.

And if Team CCP wins, they distribute the ships to the plebs, via lottery or some such.

Glasgow Dunlop
Posted - 2011.06.20 12:04:00 - [129]
 

Here By My Suggestions:

1) Allow 'B' Teams : Hydra & Overlord ( I Think? ) were in the finals and trained together, so what, there going to split the stuff in the end? So why not let there be 2 entrance for each rather than 1, the way it would be set up is that the 'b' teams would have a separate pool to get in the group stages, to allow the other alliances a fair shot if they only want one team in, so if the top 16 come back next year, 4 slots can go to the 'b' teams, trying to keep them away from the 'a's during the group stage.

2) Flasgships: Whats the point of having a FS if its not on show in the arena? FS must be flown in every match, thou to help things out with diffrent set-ups the could be given AT mods that give certain extra bounes to fleet fights.

3) Point Penalties: Have a handicap system were the more of certain ships have a increase of 2-4 points (T2 & T3 Only)

4) Comedy Set-ups Match: This should be done as either a preview or warm-up for big matches, invite back some of the fallen allainces, and instead of points per ships, points per module, IE depending on the metalevel is the points they have to spend, and cetian ships must be brought, likes badgers, hulks, rookie ships ect ect.

Annie Seko
Posted - 2011.06.21 06:35:00 - [130]
 

Here is a thought....

Require that Alliances be more than 6 months old and that all the corps of the competing pilots are part of that alliance for at least 6 months just as pilots are required to be a member of a corp for 6 months prior to the Tournament.

Outbreak Corp split off from Hydra Reloaded Alliance on 4/28/2011 and joined the new Outbreak. alliance that was created on 05/01/2011. Pretty obvious Hydra Reloaded basically had two teams in the tournament.



Ludacrys
Posted - 2011.06.21 12:14:00 - [131]
 

5v5 stages sucked, get rid of them

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.06.21 12:59:00 - [132]
 

Originally by: Ludacrys
5v5 stages sucked, get rid of them

The footage that was made by participants says otherwise, some of the best fights in the entire tournament were 5v5 and not officially broadcast.

If meta-gaming is really to be the alpha/omega of Eve then let the tournament show it by officially supporting it.
- Semifinals and final are removed and replaced with a single 20 minute fight with the remaining 4 teams.
Last man standing gets 1st place, last team to be killed gets 2nd place etc.

Have prizes be an either/or thing. Winners can chose to take the cash or to have a memorial erected for posterity .. time we put a price on e-peen since that is supposedly why the 1337-PvP'ers even participate.

Melfina Rayne
Posted - 2011.06.21 13:11:00 - [133]
 

Allow ONLY flagships the ability to warpin to match after its started and ONLY after one of the ships of there team has been destroyed.

that way teams would thinkn twice about killing a frig for example.Making them afriad of a flagship coming to the teams rescue.


Tsal V'eech
Posted - 2011.06.21 13:33:00 - [134]
 

I think the main and only real issue with the current format from a viewer perspective is that it inevitably favours one race and setup over all others, which can make for some very dull and predictable matches. The setup and race in question of course being the Battlecruiser-heavy Minmitar team.

So how about introducing a simple racial quota for each stage of the tournament (i.e. 3 matches in the group stage / 3 in the elimination stage / final match) so that each team can only field as many ships of each race per stage as the maximum allowable number of ships on a team. In other words if you're allowed 10 ships in a match then you can field 10 ships from each race across the 3 matches of each stage, then whatever you like in the final match. So you CAN field a full Minmitar team, but then for the remaining 2 matches of that stage of the tourney you can't field any more Minmitar ships.

I think this would make for a FAR wider variety of racial setups, forcing teams to choose between mixing races in a match or opting for the single race setup, but then obviously having to field 3 different single race setups from 3 different races. All of which would make for much more interesting and unpredictable matches for us to watch and you to commentate on!

It would also introduce a whole new fun-loving level of metagaming complexity to the tournament. Since the same setups will still be the most effective the team leaders are now in a position of having to decide against which team they want to deploy their most effective setup, which will make for some entertaining dilemmas, especially in the elimination stage. Spying, double-dealing and backstabbing will never have been so important!

I think this rule could also level the playing field somewhat and make for some of those great, cruel 'EVE' situations, where perhaps the tournament favourites are up against a much weaker opponent but find themselves outclassed in ship types. Do they succumb to the cold, brutal statistics of DPS or can pilot skill triumph? The opportunity for crushing, unexpected defeats and heroic against-the-odds victories is increased, that has got to make for better viewing.

In summary: a simple racial quota could dramatically shake up the ship combinations being fielded, add a whole new level of challenging complexity for the pilots and make for an unpredictable, exciting viewing experience!

Poetic Stanziel
Gallente
Macbeth Transport and Freight LLC
Posted - 2011.06.21 14:09:00 - [135]
 

1. Drop battleship point cost by two points.

2. So that we don't see the same damned four set-ups from the top teams over and over, add +1 points to the cost of any ship if it is Minmatar or Caldari.

3. The easy fix to the tournament, and one that would eliminate most meta-gaming (i.e. fixing of matches and joke setups) would be to switch to a single elimination system. The group stage winners from the previous year are seeded deeper into the match tree.

Basically, lose a match, you are immediately out of the tournament. Every fight is important, every fight you have to bring your best.

Sure, some teams may buy wins (advancement), but I think that sort of metagaming would not be common (except perhaps at the very early stages) ... the deeper you get into the tournament, the more serious the teams are, the less likely they can be bought off.

3a. All the teams that made it to the Group Stage in a previous year would be seeded later into the tournament.

So, you might have 64 teams on the first two days, 32 teams on the third day, on the 4th day the remaining 16 teams plus the 16 teams from the previous year's group stage (so 32 teams) would be pitted against each other, on day 5 the remaining 16 teams, and on day 6 you have 8 teams, then 4, then 2, then the winner.

4. Have five judges ... if a majority rule that there was match fixing, both teams are disqualified. Joke setups and what happened in the final are hard to argue as being anything other than what they were.

Poetic Stanziel
Gallente
Macbeth Transport and Freight LLC
Posted - 2011.06.21 14:12:00 - [136]
 

Edited by: Poetic Stanziel on 21/06/2011 16:27:31


Originally by: El'Niaga

Single elimination. You lose your out.

64 alliances battle (32 matches)
32 winners then battle (16 matches)
16 winners then battle (8 matches)
8 winners then battle (4 matches)
4 winners then battle (2 matches)
2 Winners then battle for Final ( 1 match)


The winners that got to the previous year's group stage (or the final 16 of the previous year), are seeded into the tournament at a later date. Therefore,

64 alliances battle (32 matches)
32 winners then battle (16 matches)
16 winners + top 16 alliances from previous year then battle (16 matches)
16 winners then battle (8 matches)
8 winners then battle (4 matches)
4 winners then battle (2 matches)
2 Winners then battle for Final ( 1 match)

Maraleith
Gallente
Metalstorm Inc.
Posted - 2011.06.21 16:10:00 - [137]
 

Knockout tournament replacing round robin is one definite change. That makes metagaming such as what we saw much more riskier because you lose your out. Yes you can buy the other side off but if they betray you what can you say .....

Battleships need to be brought back into the 10 man fleet through lower points. And I want to see more variety in ships being used so adjustment in ship points need to occur.

I was thinking of having two classes of competition; a small ships type class where only t1 cruisers and below can be used with one logistics ship while the open class is for all types of ships.

As for the metagaming in the final; CCP is hoist on its own petard. It supports and condones metagaming so please don't complain when it humiliates you in front of the world.

Edenmain
Euphoria Released
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2011.06.21 16:34:00 - [138]
 

Originally by: flapie 2
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.


All of this is impossible to enforce, we could still do exactly the same and just work more on the final match.

The only thing I can think of is having blind matches where you don't know who you are fighting untill you enter the arena.

For example 8 teams get a start time, (you will obviously know to within 7 teams who you are fighting) get your ships get transported and warp in and then you will see who you face.

Obviously quarter and semi-finals will have a 25% cahnce and 50% chance of knowing who but It should be irrelevent by then.

I don't think there is much wrong with the tourney as it is obviously people didn't like the final match but the semi's were intense.

I think the fact that people are using the arguement about the free to enter prize draw being affected shows that they can't really find any fault with what actually went on.

Herping yourDerp
Posted - 2011.06.21 18:03:00 - [139]
 

i'd like to see cruiser/frigs/battleships more relevant.
t1 frigs were rare at best
i think i saw 1 cruiser.
battleships when seen usually died.
raise t2/3 ship points
lower t1 ship point cost.

or like i said before, change the way the tournament works, if every team gets a battleship no matter what regardless of points it could be more fun, immagine a free battleship loaded with ECCM and stuff to combat ecm teams.
or a pulse fitted apoc to hit the kite teams
ecm scorpion?
i mean it would be a battleship and their biggest issue is slow and point cost so no one uses them, if the point cost is 0 or like 2 for only 1 ship it would change for the better.

Reilly Duvolle
Posted - 2011.06.21 18:16:00 - [140]
 

Edited by: Reilly Duvolle on 23/06/2011 18:33:54
1. Remove most monetary rewards. A trillion+ isk (the value of the first prize) is a large enough sum to be able to directly influence TQ power politics and this encourages player behaviour we should try to keep out of the AT. Use "E-honour" rewards like monuments, public medals/decorations, diplomas for the CQ and/or vanity items (special paintjobs on ships, clothing etc etc - use your imagination)

2. Use a 64 or 128 team single match elimination format. No point system. Win or loose. And a new draw after each round. 128 teams would need 4 weekends (16 matches per day), of which the round of 128 (the first 2 weekends) could be conducted with or without EVE TV coverage. Tie-breaker rule = extension with sudden death.

3. Participation in ATX should be by CCP invitation only. Criteria for invitation: Top 4 or 8 last years tourney or top 64/128 alliances on Battleclinic or EVE-kill in the period starting from the end of last years tourney, and which are still active at the time of invitation (a 3 toon holder corp will not be considered "active"). Reserves will be invited if alliances on the list decline the invitation.

4. Only characters in the alliance at the date of invitation should be eligible to participate.

Effect: The use of last minute formed "sleeping" or "alt" alliances should stop. Only alliances with demonstrated PVP skill the last year will be invited. Little/no incentive to rig matches for isk or any other reason.

Edenmain
Euphoria Released
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2011.06.21 23:09:00 - [141]
 

Originally by: Reilly Duvolle
Edited by: Reilly Duvolle on 21/06/2011 18:33:44
1. Remove most monetary rewards. A trillion+ isk (the value of the first prize) is a large enough sum to be able to directly influence TQ power politics and this encourages player behaviour we should try to keep out of the AT. Use "E-honour" rewards like monuments, public medals/decorations, diplomas for the CQ and/or vanity items (special paintjobs on ships, clothing etc etc - use your imagination)

Effect: The use of last minute formed "sleeping" or "alt" alliances should stop. Only alliances with demonstrated PVP skill the last year will be invited. Little/no incentive to rig matches for isk or any other reason.


You wouldn't get the best teams, the input from teams, the background prep, fights that meant anything. People wouldn't be bothered if it didn't mean anything.

Time Funnel
Posted - 2011.06.21 23:27:00 - [142]
 

Edited by: Time Funnel on 21/06/2011 23:35:20
Edited by: Time Funnel on 21/06/2011 23:27:41
Originally by: Shamis Orzoz

The only way to see more lasers and more blasters would be to lower the point cost of gallente and amarr would be to fine tune the points PER SHIP. Something like:
brutix 9 points
cyclone 10 points
harbinger 12 points
hurricane 13 points
sleipnir 16 points
abso 15 points
etc



The rules I think are pretty good but ship balance could be improved.

IDEA - The least used ships get point reductions for the following AT. The most used get point increases. Once someone balances them they can get back to their normal points. This point increase could be for ship (Sleipnir, Rook, Scimitar) or decrease by ship class (T1 BS)

It will quickly become obvious what needs to be balanced. The balancing team can use that information on where to look where to balance. If a ship class is underused they can buff it. If an entire race's cruiser line is unused they can look to improve it.

Edit: and some sort of ghetto coverage for the prelims.

Anton Rowan
Posted - 2011.06.22 06:57:00 - [143]
 

Edited by: Anton Rowan on 22/06/2011 07:28:46
How about each team can only have a pre-selected number of ships for each round (using whatever points scores/ship restrictions deemed appropriate). The points total etc.. set so that it is a little more interesting than just having a team turn up with 2 different setups for the fights.

So for instance, a team has 225 points available (so a little bit of flexibility) to select of pool of ships to be used in the next round of fights, limited to 3 of any ship type.

If they lose some ships in the first fight then they are lost from the pool and so can not be used in the selection of the team for the next fight.

This way a every ship destroyed could be a severe blow to the team and might mean they have to think on the fly about tactics, depending on what they wanted to do versus what they actual have left to fight with, coupled with the knowledge of what the other team could or could not field.









Terianna Eri
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
Posted - 2011.06.22 10:49:00 - [144]
 

Edited by: Terianna Eri on 22/06/2011 10:52:56
Originally by: Liang Nuren
words and stuff

That's very nice that you can afford to faction-deadspace fit every single one of your ships for all the matches you could ever care to do. Good for you. It's cute that you think that people will only shell out where it matters the most instead of spending as much as they can afford.

Contrary to what you think, not every group of players has the same resource base, and imposing a harsher restriction of "you must have this much isk to participate competitively" is not good for the tournament or the game in general.

As for implants, yes, slight changes in stats can make big differences. What's your point? Faction damage mods, faction MWDs, faction resist mods all have slight increases that could lead to big results and they're not allowed in the tournament. All implants do is provide another way for wealthier players to get an easy advantage.

Maybe you're okay with that, in which case you have no opinions worth listening to anyway Rolling Eyes.

If you're going to allow faction and deadspace fittings on everything, fine, allow all the implants you want Rolling Eyes. But since that's a fantastically stupid idea, and implants are basically equivalent to some faction gear ("pay a lot more for a slight advantage"), there's not much sense in allowing implants that do the same thing.

P.S. I expected better from you than a glorified "no, you're stupid"

Electra GaafCramo
Posted - 2011.06.22 11:49:00 - [145]
 

My first suggestion is that you, kil2, stay the hell away from Iceland next year. You were a complete disgrace in the final.

Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
Posted - 2011.06.22 13:01:00 - [146]
 

Originally by: Edenmain
You wouldn't get the best teams, the input from teams, the background prep, fights that meant anything. People wouldn't be bothered if it didn't mean anything.


Dont know about you but I'd rather have players whose motivation isnt pure greed, that way theres more common incentive to make it a fair and decent fight rather than a win at all costs cluster**** like it is now. But again this comes back to what the tournament is meant to be, and only ccp can can decide that.

El'Niaga
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.06.22 14:42:00 - [147]
 

Originally by: Poetic Stanziel
Edited by: Poetic Stanziel on 21/06/2011 16:27:31


Originally by: El'Niaga

Single elimination. You lose your out.

64 alliances battle (32 matches)
32 winners then battle (16 matches)
16 winners then battle (8 matches)
8 winners then battle (4 matches)
4 winners then battle (2 matches)
2 Winners then battle for Final ( 1 match)


The winners that got to the previous year's group stage (or the final 16 of the previous year), are seeded into the tournament at a later date. Therefore,

64 alliances battle (32 matches)
32 winners then battle (16 matches)
16 winners + top 16 alliances from previous year then battle (16 matches)
16 winners then battle (8 matches)
8 winners then battle (4 matches)
4 winners then battle (2 matches)
2 Winners then battle for Final ( 1 match)


I don't think anyone should get a free pass, everyone starts at the beginning. It is the only way to really prevent metagaming. Like you point out some might still throw a match but without jokeying for position in the current system you'd eliminate most metagaming. If you allow passes then you interduce metagaming into the equation as folks will make deals one year to be in it the next year.

Reilly Duvolle
Posted - 2011.06.22 15:13:00 - [148]
 

Originally by: Edenmain

You wouldn't get the best teams, the input from teams, the background prep, fights that meant anything. People wouldn't be bothered if it didn't mean anything.


History tells differently. The insane monetary prizes was there in AT 1-3 and then again from AT7 onwards. The torneys in between had mostly vanity prices. So star fraction vs BOB (AT4) wasnt good enough for you? or PL vs RUR (AT6)?. Sorry dude, but you are wrong. maybe HYDRA wouldnt compete. To bad, but I can live with that.

Fewell
Posted - 2011.06.23 11:08:00 - [149]
 

I havn't read the entire thread so forgive me if this is not original content.
1st Place=Cruiser Blueprints
3rd Place=Frigate Blueprints
2nd Place won the chance to fight for blueprints but failed, same for fourth.
you'd have to have another match, between the last two teams that didn't make the finals, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
This should lead to gf's in the last two matches. You won't stop metagaming between two alliances that are very tight, but for others, who would you trust enough to take a fall for half the prize ships and believe they'd hand them over?

Ghostwind
Gallente
Dead Skin Mask
Posted - 2011.06.24 06:57:00 - [150]
 

Edited by: Ghostwind on 24/06/2011 07:12:16
Make sure every participant can practice in peace. Maybe a dimensional pocket for each locked with password. Team members could still leak information though, but it would provide better options for everyone to keep their strategies safeguarded. And less hassle for those that have chosen the worm hole option in this tournament. Not to mention that spies would get a much less load on their backs.

Maybe tag-teaming from a pool of ten, during the match could be an option. Once a member gets taken out, another replaces him. Once a team has no members left in the pool they have lost the fight. 5 vs 5 could be appropriate. This could turn fights up side down by bringing a new ship to the field.


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