open All Channels
seplocked EVE Alliance Tournament Discussion
blankseplocked Next Tournament (formal request)
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic

Avalira
Caldari
The Black Light Foundation
Posted - 2008.02.28 16:21:00 - [31]
 

Edited by: Avalira on 28/02/2008 16:25:54
Perhaps the basic idea behind DHB WildCat's post is to have more players deciding on the rules and, excuse me for shouting, BEING BLOODY SURE THERE ARE NO LOOPHOLES.

I've watched most of the tournaments and in every single one there have been ambiguous rules (ie not everyone is sure what should happen), oversights, ways around the rules and some things that are just plainly forgotten. If we want a well organised tournament it helps to have board of players who can help out. By default any committee or board needs to have members experienced in the matter at hand. The players DHB pointed out are all players who know the game mechanics very well and who have participated enough to know what goes on in a tournament. It does not mean that those members will automatically get their respective alliances into the tournament nor get any special treatment what-so-ever. It simply means there will be more eyes to make sure that the current rules are congruent and more ears to listen to the voice of those 10-man alliances.

The last time it "failed" was because it was badly managed, not because the idea was bad to include players in the decision of rules.

The fact that for each tournament there are mistakes made means that the system is not water-tight. So unless CCP takes the step into trying out another method then it might not even be worth the effort to make another tournament.

In short, help us help you make a better tournament for participants and us to watch.

Thanks.

Edit:
Originally by: CCP Atropos
Out of interest, what do you see the theoretical player council advising upon? Admission procedures, tournament rules, prizes? Certain things simply aren't possible, for example, if the player board 'ruled' that the prizes were to be faction modified Titans or similar.

As DHB said, not the prizes for the same reason you stated. The way I see it is CCP creates a set of rules and the committee checks for eventual problems and finds solutions. Their job is also to listen to what the players are asking for and filter out the ideas that could potentially be included into the tournament. After that it's up to CCP to validate what the committee is proposing.

As an added bonus, if something goes wrong then CCP won't be the only ones to blame. Razz

DHB WildCat
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2008.02.28 17:06:00 - [32]
 

HMMMM there seems to be a hard time getting over personal vendettas against me 8(. However, putting personal feelings aside, let me try to clear up some issues CCP may be worried about.

The counsel - Why did I choose these people. In my opinion they are the type of players that have the experience both of regular in game mechanics and tournament experience. They understand many things that your typical player is not familiar with. Also these people are VERY pationate about the tournament. They are rutinely seen posting in this section and have spent hours upon hours to training preparation and isk into previous tournaments. These people would be the type to see thing through to the end.

What we can do as the counsel.
1. Set Rules
2. Determine arena
3. Set point system and player system.
4. Develop bracket system.

My biggest goal for the next tournament is to have sign-ups open for a month time period. Allow everyone that wishes to participate, participate. I have plans for every possible number of alliances that wish to participate. Even if it comes down to a college basketball type system of single elimination, or untelevised prelims.

What we cannot do as a counsel.
1. Give prizes
2. Enforce Rules

We will need CCP cooperation with this. I promise to behave myself towards you as well. I can repsect you if you respect me.
The reasons that counsels may have failed in the past is because the people may or may not of failed to see it through to the end. I wish to start this process from the moment this tournament finishes! This will not only allow us ample time to get things set and organized but will also allow us to accomodate changes for upcoming patches.

As for sending you ideas for the tournament. I dont think so. This is the idea of the counsel. I have many ideas that I think are great, but the other 11 people may think suck and need tweeking. This is going to be a long and difficult process, and I for one am willing to put the time and effort in to make it the best tournament that can possibly be held! Also if you have people that you think are deserving and knowledgeable in pvp (sorry carebears) then give their names and they will be welcomed.

WildCat

Malar
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded
Posted - 2008.02.28 18:23:00 - [33]
 

Okay, here is my take on the tournament issue.

What do people like to see? In one word: drama.
-They want to see suprising losses,
-Expensive stuff getting vaporized,
-Interesting (close) fights,
and eventually
-underdogs raising to become champions.

what do the contestants want? Honestly: who cares?

Don't get me wrong, hell im in there just as those other teams, yet i do think that my 'needs' are secondary to the popularity of the tournament. Basically you have to statisfy some basic needs, like providing an opportunity for fair fights and giving them a reason to fight for - as glory is obviously not enough for some. Apart from that tho, they will fight anyway, so why care?

The viewers.. now they are harder to get. They have no immediate motivation to watch the tournament, so you have to cater for them to make them want to sit down and watch.

Why is that important? Apart from the marketing value of an event like this - and until your comment i did believe that it is the main reason you are still organizing these tournaments - having many viewers also increases the rank of the event. The more people watching, the more famous you can become through winning.

So lets see.
-suprising losses. You can always get those, no biggie.
-expensive stuff getting vaporized.. nah. not anymore. Basically anything thats really expensive got banned from the tournament.. more on this later.
-interesting fights.. since the ammount of possible ship setups you can field is cut down drastically due to all the module bans, its really not hard to predict what will happen once you see a setup fielded against different setup. That is.. if you have an idea about what ships can do.
- underdogs blahblha.. see losses.

So as you can see, 2 out of the 4 points i wrote are unattainable or kind of limited because of the module bans. Module bans that have been imposed on us to facilitate the entry of smaller - poorer - alliances into the tournament.

I do understand CCPs position that they want to get more alliances interested in fighting, i do think however that they approach this from the wrong end.

See.. participating in the tournament is not mandatory.. You are not forced to participate with a gun pointed at your head.. people should only participate if they can bear what it takes to participate, and you (that is CCP) should really not be trying to want them participate more by lowering the requirements.

Why? Because lowering the requirements lowers the standards of the tournament thus lowering the overall quality / value of it. Just look at how many teams are stepping back / stepping out.. you didnt see this before, and for a reason.. simply because participating was a serious decision and not something like 'oh well.. we have an alliance, lets sign up'.

Instead, you should be trying to get more people to watch the fights. For that to happen, both the fights, and the garnishing should be interesting. The more people are watching, the more of a value the tournament will get, and the more of a value it gets, the more people will WANT to participate for the glory of potentially becoming a champion. Not just because they can afford to participate.

So summarized, i think we need changes on:
- the general tournament structure to allow for more potential entrants in the future
- the tournament rules, to allow for more varied (you can never get enough variation) and interesting fights
- the garnishing so to say, which includes anything from side-shows through mini-events surrounding the tournament, to the broadcast itself.

This might sound a lot, but not everything needs to be turned upside down.. so in reality its not as bad as it sounds.

anyway:
I do think that lot of what i wrote above will cause some heavy flaming, and i realize that it is quite opposite to the direction you guys are heading into. I still stand by my opinion and will be happy to argue about it if you feel it to be worth arguing about.

Necronus
Amarr
Monks of War
DarkSide.
Posted - 2008.02.28 18:28:00 - [34]
 

Personally, i dont see a darn logical reason why those people listed above cannot make a tournament better with theyr ideas and experience. CCP is always open for reasonable offers.
Now tell me why do you have to create "secret society" "mighty council" and bull**** like this.It gives unnececary power to people that have their own interest and will try to exploit it in every possible way.(Thats the human nature huh :D )
Just post your ideas, mail them to CCP and so on.

About the brackets and tourney organization:
If you do like Wildcat suggests you can eventually get to the point when you cannot swallow the thing you have just chewed and everybody will get much more hassle then
then there is with current system.

I like the CCP for one reason. They never rush to make changes that did not get heavy thinking.



Orree
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2008.02.28 18:36:00 - [35]
 

Whether or not WildCat has the answer detailed in his OP and subsequent postings, I do not know. However, I do think what he outlines has merit.

I believe that continuing on the current path of tourney organization is a very bad idea. Please try something different.

The shenanigans and the nonsense accompanying each successive tournament are bleeding my interest and I'll bet I'm not alone.

I'll be pulling for my alliance's team because I like and respect the pilots and their efforts. Apart from that, I don't intend to pay much attention as a result of the nonsense with the sign-ups and the alternates. For the first time...I won't watch or listen to a second of the commentary.



Malar
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded
Posted - 2008.02.28 18:38:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: DHB WildCat

...


While i'm sure that everyone has its own image on how the tournament should look like, i'm also certain that a 'council' might find a common ground that they all agree on.

To those who think the rules might be favoring one side or the other, or not be entirely fair:
I do believe in, that if so many (unrelated) people agree on something, then it can't generally be a bad thing.

In any case, an initiative like this could / should not work without CCP's active participation, so that the group gets their input as well. After all.. they are the ones running the show.

MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
Posted - 2008.02.28 18:50:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: CCP Atropos
Originally by: Evil Edna
chill out, no-ones trolling

just your replies so far were off on a bit of a tangent away from what wildcat was suggesting, implying you weren't quite on the same page as his idea.

by involving players with a deep tournament experience, especially from earlier ones which ran more smoothly, it could well help to give the next one a better setup for both teams and, most importantly, viewers, and maybe get rid of some of the mistake this time which, while providing some amusing drama, have also made a bit of a mockery of this event. which is a shame for everyone as this is one of the things that sets eve apart.

what he's not suggesting is some kind of elites-only tournament (which would be ridiculous anyway as theres probably only been 10 or so teams that would fall into that group), just a better run and set out tournament for all

Yes, I realise that the idea is to allow tournament veterans to decide upon the rules, and what I am saying is that, for those that don't fall into, as you say, those 10 or so teams, (i.e. the other 30 teams) there is no say in the rules. They have to 'trust' that the so-called veterans have their best interests in mind.

Personally, I don't care if well known alliance X or unknown alliance Y wins it. I want to level the playing field as much as it can be, so that everyone is on an equal footing. I would be more inclined to allow people to partake in a player run council if they and their team were subsequently disallowed from competing, so as to remove any aspect of rule tampering or prior knowledge. Of course, that's just my take on things Twisted Evil


it doesn't mean the allaince will even be in the tourny.

Would it be completely different if these palyers quit thier allainces frist?

I don't think you understand, He is talking about the players, they have FC, in older tourniment, thus they know what they are talking about, even if thier allaince doesn't get in, or is barred for some reason.

Ignore the allaince they are part of it's about the players themselfs is it not?

I mean I fully 100% understand where you are coming form, but I think it's more important to have people on the forums vote for a player run concil to help in the rule.

wait a min speaking of which it's been almost a year and there is no player concil like you guys promised anyways.

I guess my point is some of these players would be voted anyways, so why not have a vote on the site for the rule makers of the next tourny.

Maybe even voting in willing members of CCP to take GM novas job.

that way the players are happy.

I understand , eltieism is bad, but the players listed, allaince or not are respected by a large amount of the playerbase, even by allaince haters. I for one don't care for BoB, but I trust the jugdement of it'
s leaders when it comes to eve, because they knbow the game.

I would say that the player run consil should have 50% rule and CCP the other 50% with a main CCP member or GM nova to make the final word if there is a tie.

that's jsut my suggestion :)

QwaarJet
Gallente
hirr
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2008.02.28 18:50:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Malar
Originally by: DHB WildCat

...


While i'm sure that everyone has its own image on how the tournament should look like, i'm also certain that a 'council' might find a common ground that they all agree on.

To those who think the rules might be favoring one side or the other, or not be entirely fair:
I do believe in, that if so many (unrelated) people agree on something, then it can't generally be a bad thing.

In any case, an initiative like this could / should not work without CCP's active participation, so that the group gets their input as well. After all.. they are the ones running the show.


Yeah, obviously CCP would have loads of input and would make the final call. And I think that the pilots mentioned have very different opinions on things (you and I for example) is a good thing. It means many views get represented instead of CCP building something with only their image of how it should be. I really think that a committee like that could still find common ground and eventually agree on stuff that would be best for the tournament, which is what we all want in the end.

MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
Posted - 2008.02.28 18:54:00 - [39]
 

Edited by: MotherMoon on 28/02/2008 18:56:13
Edited by: MotherMoon on 28/02/2008 18:54:44
Originally by: CCP Atropos
Out of interest, what do you see the theoretical player council advising upon? Admission procedures, tournament rules, prizes? Certain things simply aren't possible, for example, if the player board 'ruled' that the prizes were to be faction modified Titans or similar.



Last tourny NMTZ round 4

points awarded to other team for kills after cease fire is called.

GM nova made the call without anyoneelse to get a word in, bull****

Final match for derek where as a joke they ask permission to bring a typhoon full of shuttles that they would jettison as a joke!
They get PERMISSION to do this a week in advance.

and GM nova remove3d the ship and they lose the match no lolz, and the team might have won even with the silly ships, but taking out... no I'm sorry BLOWING UP a teams battleship doesn't help that team win a match.

A player consil that was actully watching the matches should of made the calls no?


Basiclly I'm saying players of different teams competeing should be the ones calling the shots for things that have no rules untill the time comes up.
I remember the team that faced MNTZ actully agreed with NMTZ that the points should not have been awarded, did GM nova give a ****? nope.

Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
Posted - 2008.02.28 19:40:00 - [40]
 

one of my biggest problems with the tournament is that one of the most basic modules of pvp was ignored. what am i referring to? The almighty warp disruptor/scrambler!

the damp missile fest was no fun to watch after the first or second time.

DHB WildCat
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2008.02.28 20:34:00 - [41]
 

Some ideas Ive been thinking about..... Here you go atropos.

Arena is the entire grid.... have a fast ship? Use it for your gang to warp to. OMG you mean we have to scramble to hold our targets 8)?

Allow ten man teams but enough points to were you can see 5 Battleship, 5 support ship groups. I think it would be fun to see some heavy firepower.

Allow Rigs!!!!! OMG why dont we already do this!?

Anyways some ideas, just as a teaser. These are some examples I like but others may dissagree with so that is why a group of people to decide will be better than one person.

WildCat

EVETV spiralJunkie
Posted - 2008.02.28 21:10:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: DHB WildCat
Some ideas Ive been thinking about..... Here you go atropos.

Arena is the entire grid.... have a fast ship? Use it for your gang to warp to. OMG you mean we have to scramble to hold our targets 8)?

Allow ten man teams but enough points to were you can see 5 Battleship, 5 support ship groups. I think it would be fun to see some heavy firepower.

Allow Rigs!!!!! OMG why dont we already do this!?

Anyways some ideas, just as a teaser. These are some examples I like but others may dissagree with so that is why a group of people to decide will be better than one person.

WildCat



completely off the top of my head, and bear in mind I think allowing tactical warping is a great idea for the combat itself, but I think a big reason we don't do this is that warping breaks lock, and it means we'd lose the lock fro the camera ship, and would have to reaquire it, messing up the shot.

Evil Edna
Jian Products Engineering Group
Atlas.
Posted - 2008.02.28 21:37:00 - [43]
 

yea ive heard that said before about not having warping.

allowing rigs would be a no-brainer, they open up alot more variety in setups, give a greater number of ships a chance for being useful, both of which increase the tacical options.

Malar
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded
Posted - 2008.02.28 21:42:00 - [44]
 

Edited by: Malar on 28/02/2008 21:50:00
Edited by: Malar on 28/02/2008 21:42:57
Originally by: EVETV spiralJunkie
Originally by: DHB WildCat
Some ideas Ive been thinking about..... Here you go atropos.

Arena is the entire grid.... have a fast ship? Use it for your gang to warp to. OMG you mean we have to scramble to hold our targets 8)?

Allow ten man teams but enough points to were you can see 5 Battleship, 5 support ship groups. I think it would be fun to see some heavy firepower.

Allow Rigs!!!!! OMG why dont we already do this!?

Anyways some ideas, just as a teaser. These are some examples I like but others may dissagree with so that is why a group of people to decide will be better than one person.

WildCat



completely off the top of my head, and bear in mind I think allowing tactical warping is a great idea for the combat itself, but I think a big reason we don't do this is that warping breaks lock, and it means we'd lose the lock fro the camera ship, and would have to reaquire it, messing up the shot.


Yea, too bad tho.. warping would really add some dimension to this, but it really messes with the camera stuff.

About fast ships.. the only modules i really support banning are the faction stuff for speed enhancement. The game allows you to achieve speeds that are not designed for combat. While this might be a tactic for survival, it would make matches to be a boring game of cat and mouse.

As i said earlier: the key should be to have things blown up, not to have them zip around at unbelievable speed.

Same reason i support the banning of tank enhancing officer modules. Those give resists that are way out of the line compared to the others - again, the goal should be to see ships blow up, not to see them sit there tanking indefinitely.

The other stuff however.. i really see nothing bad with that.

As for the super sized fleet idea. I played with that myself. Like heavier ships (hac and above, should get their point cost reduced and get a limit on how many you are allowed to field each match)

This would allow us to see bigger ships in fleets while still keeping the fleet size considerably higher than the current options would allow.

Also it might be interesting to tweak that rule in the future, adding overall limits to the whole tournament, like you have to work from 20 cruisers max in each tournament, so you cant just go around and suicide fleets of 10 each fight with heavy losses as you will 'run out of them' forcing you to use alternative ships instead.. then again, a system like this would need quite a lot of thinking, and im really only just throwing in some wild ideas here..

Life Machine
Caldari
The Soprano Family
Posted - 2008.02.28 21:56:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: Malar
Also it might be interesting to tweak that rule in the future, adding overall limits to the whole tournament, like you have to work from 20 cruisers max in each tournament, so you cant just go around and suicide fleets of 10 each fight with heavy losses as you will 'run out of them' forcing you to use alternative ships instead.. then again, a system like this would need quite a lot of thinking, and im really only just throwing in some wild ideas here..


This right here, is by far the best idea put forward so far. It would mean no more setups being continually used that appear unstoppable. Limiting ships and how many can be used in the span of the tournament is just genius. It would require a lot more planning and organisation, and a much broader range of available pilots.

CCP Atropos

Posted - 2008.02.29 10:53:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: DHB WildCat
Some ideas Ive been thinking about..... Here you go atropos.

Arena is the entire grid.... have a fast ship? Use it for your gang to warp to. OMG you mean we have to scramble to hold our targets 8)?

Allow ten man teams but enough points to were you can see 5 Battleship, 5 support ship groups. I think it would be fun to see some heavy firepower.

Allow Rigs!!!!! OMG why dont we already do this!?

Anyways some ideas, just as a teaser. These are some examples I like but others may dissagree with so that is why a group of people to decide will be better than one person.

WildCat


As has already been said here, and said multiple times before, both on the forums and on EVETV, we can't have people warping around the arena because it would break the locks for the camera ships. So it's simply not feasible.

Moving onwards, your first comments I won't dismiss out of hand, but I will reiterate that we saw ridiculous tank-fests when we didn't restrict modules and ships. Think back to some of the early days that others are reminiscing about; the whole reason we saw more faction battleships then, was because people felt safe using them. As the safety of the ships partaking goes up, the excitement for the viewer goes down. Surely you must agree given what we've seen over the last four tournaments, with the missile spamming and tanking.

I would bet money on the fact, that if we reintroduced rigs and changed the points to allow, as you say, 'ten man teams but enough points to were you can see 5 Battleship, 5 support ship groups. I think it would be fun to see some heavy firepower' the fights would drag on longer than they do currently.

Since one of the prime factors that a lot of people want changed is the inclusion of as many people who want to take part, as enter, more and more fights would go to a draw.

I understand that you want to make it as close to real PVP as you can, and are suggesting removing the ship/module restrictions we currently have in place, but I shudder to think how long the tournament would need to be run for. When you realise that there are man hours to be worked out for the GM's overseeing the event and transferring people to and from RU-97T, it's not just a case of saying 'don't air them on EVETV'.

On the flip side, it is refreshing to have a coherent discussion about the rules, and I hope I don't come across as a heavy handed moderator. I really am very interested in improving the tournament for all.

Vando
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2008.02.29 11:51:00 - [47]
 

First of all, I'd like to say this is a great idea and long overdue.

However, before we start patting each other on the back, it would be wise to listen to at least some of Atropos' concerns regarding 'inbreeding' of the tournament. While it is true that experience in past tournaments is a vital quality, it doesn't make you infallible, and there is always a risk of 'over-engineering' things. Bear in mind that a completely green tournament entrant may still be aware of how structuring, timekeeping and other general planning is of great importance, and such a player may be less blinded by a focus on technical minutae such as what modules to allow or disallow.

To the CCP staff, I would say: don't worry too much about the listed 'experts' making an elitist tournament. Remember, it's your project so you can overrule them at any time. Just make sure that all ideas are at least considered, and I'm sure the players will be happy.

To the potential council: don't jump in headfirst and start suggesting sweeping changes to the technical rules. The most important thing, the thing which has annoyed the crap out of most people in the runup to the current event, is the planning and communication. As representatives of one side of the event communications, you're well placed to address these issues immediately.

To everyone else: enjoy the current tournament, but take notes! There will be a test at the end Wink I'm sure CCP will welcome all forms of participant and viewer feedback (well, maybe not ALL forms, as petrolbombs through the office window often offend! Razz) and the information you provide should be very useful in guiding whoever is working on future events.

CCP Atropos

Posted - 2008.02.29 12:00:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Vando
First of all, I'd like to say this is a great idea and long overdue.

However, before we start patting each other on the back, it would be wise to listen to at least some of Atropos' concerns regarding 'inbreeding' of the tournament. While it is true that experience in past tournaments is a vital quality, it doesn't make you infallible, and there is always a risk of 'over-engineering' things. Bear in mind that a completely green tournament entrant may still be aware of how structuring, timekeeping and other general planning is of great importance, and such a player may be less blinded by a focus on technical minutae such as what modules to allow or disallow.

To the CCP staff, I would say: don't worry too much about the listed 'experts' making an elitist tournament. Remember, it's your project so you can overrule them at any time. Just make sure that all ideas are at least considered, and I'm sure the players will be happy.

To the potential council: don't jump in headfirst and start suggesting sweeping changes to the technical rules. The most important thing, the thing which has annoyed the crap out of most people in the runup to the current event, is the planning and communication. As representatives of one side of the event communications, you're well placed to address these issues immediately.

To everyone else: enjoy the current tournament, but take notes! There will be a test at the end Wink I'm sure CCP will welcome all forms of participant and viewer feedback (well, maybe not ALL forms, as petrolbombs through the office window often offend! Razz) and the information you provide should be very useful in guiding whoever is working on future events.

Regarding communications, one of the things that a lot of forum readers don't have, is a full detail of all events. There are always mitigating circumstances that we, as the organisers, are aware of and these are the reasons we make certain decisions, which to the forum readers appear badly thought out.

The same will be true of a player council. I would hope that the same decisions are reached, the only difference is that all of the proceedings may or may not be made public, and as such the forum readers could be more lenient on them. We do not reveal the communications that are had with players, and as such only half of a story is ever released onto the forums. Because of this, the player council will be just as prone to 'bad publicity' and 'apparent lack of planning'.

Vando
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2008.02.29 12:10:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: CCP Atropos
Regarding communications, one of the things that a lot of forum readers don't have, is a full detail of all events. There are always mitigating circumstances that we, as the organisers, are aware of and these are the reasons we make certain decisions, which to the forum readers appear badly thought out.

The same will be true of a player council. I would hope that the same decisions are reached, the only difference is that all of the proceedings may or may not be made public, and as such the forum readers could be more lenient on them. We do not reveal the communications that are had with players, and as such only half of a story is ever released onto the forums. Because of this, the player council will be just as prone to 'bad publicity' and 'apparent lack of planning'.

While this is certainly true, I think the players in general will be happier to accept that these things are happening if they are informed by respected figures who represent their interests. Unfortunately as CCP staff cannot compete in the tournament, they will never be able to fully represent the interests of the competitors (even in the case of former competitors on the staff side), and there will always be a feeling that in many cases they don't 'get it' as much as someone on 'this side of the fence'.

Vando
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2008.02.29 12:12:00 - [50]
 

And I'd like to add in the above post I'm assuming you're talking about the communication of decisions and rule changes. While this is obviously important, my post intended 'communications' to mean such things as posting dates for submission of entries (which was a big issue this time around) and general 'what's happening right now' stuff that keeps the competitors and spectators informed at all times.

Black Torment
Caldari
Black Omega Security
Posted - 2008.02.29 12:27:00 - [51]
 

Edited by: Black Torment on 29/02/2008 12:31:21
Originally by: CCP Atropos

Yes, I realise that the idea is to allow tournament veterans to decide upon the rules, and what I am saying is that, for those that don't fall into, as you say, those 10 or so teams, (i.e. the other 30 teams) there is no say in the rules. They have to 'trust' that the so-called veterans have their best interests in mind.


I'm sorry but this is the most rediculous thing I've ever read. Using your logic, I could study law for two weeks and then start making demands on how things should be changed because I'm not sure the current system has my best interests in mind.

These people were chosen not because they shout loudest on the forums as you put it, but because they know a lot more about PvP than Mr Joe Average who's been playing 4 months and just happens to have set up an alliance. Now, I'm not saying they shouldn't be eligable to compete or are even on less footing, but as far as putting together a well organized tournament, I'd choose the veterans who put a lot of time and effort in over the new guys.

Think about it, when you vote for who's running your country, you don't go for the clueless new guys. Same for who's running this tournament, a LOT of people (veteran and newbie alike) value what it represents and want it to go as smoothly as possible.

I bet if there was a poll on the subject (idea for a future newsitem perhaps?) a lot of the new players would vote the veterans in too. There's no conspiricy about rule tampering, everyone just wants a fun, fair, orderly tournament with no hiccups and umms and ahhs and cries of devsploits etc.

I'm also glad wildcat didn't put his own name down, cause those ideas were silly :) But a player council of the right people + devs would know the difference between a good idea and a bad one.

Black Torment
Caldari
Black Omega Security
Posted - 2008.02.29 12:35:00 - [52]
 

Quote:
Also it might be interesting to tweak that rule in the future, adding overall limits to the whole tournament, like you have to work from 20 cruisers max in each tournament, so you cant just go around and suicide fleets of 10 each fight with heavy losses as you will 'run out of them' forcing you to use alternative ships instead.. then again, a system like this would need quite a lot of thinking, and im really only just throwing in some wild ideas here..


This one definately needs some notice though, its a flawless idea that provides more entertainment, more participation and most importantly, more fun :)

Malar
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded
Posted - 2008.02.29 12:35:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: CCP Atropos

Moving onwards, your first comments I won't dismiss out of hand, but I will reiterate that we saw ridiculous tank-fests when we didn't restrict modules and ships. Think back to some of the early days that others are reminiscing about; the whole reason we saw more faction battleships then, was because people felt safe using them. As the safety of the ships partaking goes up, the excitement for the viewer goes down. Surely you must agree given what we've seen over the last four tournaments, with the missile spamming and tanking.


The problem back then was the lack of firepower a team could fit, and to be honest it is still a bit of a problem. Sure with 10 ships allowed you can have a lot more firepower than you could with mere 5 or so (i think that was the limit for the 3rd one, and even there it was restricted to diff. classes), so i do not see tanking to be as big of a problem.

As a matter of fact, with the ammount of ships allowed, you can still get some serious tanks, but the beauty of it: they can all be broken given the tools available.

Exception - as i mentioned earlier - are some of the high bonus officer modules, as they give you tanking abilities that take small fleets to break :) (or just some out of the box thinking, but its till earier to just ban them).

I doubt that a couple of faction hardeners or reppers will really decide a battle when you can throw in like 2-3 battleships and 2-3 hacs at the same time. (assuming that the current point system is changed to allow such fleets) Focus fire will win the day.

Originally by: CCP Atropos

I would bet money on the fact, that if we reintroduced rigs and changed the points to allow, as you say, 'ten man teams but enough points to were you can see 5 Battleship, 5 support ship groups. I think it would be fun to see some heavy firepower' the fights would drag on longer than they do currently.

Since one of the prime factors that a lot of people want changed is the inclusion of as many people who want to take part, as enter, more and more fights would go to a draw.


Actually, the more firepower you can field, the less the chance of fights going to end up in a draw. While the current system might be a rock/paper/scissors version of eve-o, with most of the variety thrown out / banned, a system that allows a wider variety and more bigger ships to be fielded does not necessarily mean a system where tanking would become more dominant.

Remember.. apart from module bans, you can limit module usage in quite a lot of ways.. it just takes some creative, out of the box thinking really. (And a little more work pre-match for the GMs in checking the ships / their setups).

Originally by: CCP Atropos

I understand that you want to make it as close to real PVP as you can, and are suggesting removing the ship/module restrictions we currently have in place, but I shudder to think how long the tournament would need to be run for. When you realise that there are man hours to be worked out for the GM's overseeing the event and transferring people to and from RU-97T, it's not just a case of saying 'don't air them on EVETV'.


Well.. the man hour part only comes in when you talk about tournament structure. It really does not affect the rules as they are. Unless they fights get too dragged out ofc, which is a matter of finding the right balance between allowing things but in a way that fights would stay of a manageable length and not allowing things to make sure we do not have to concern ourselves about balancing things.

The basic goal should be making the fights more varied.

In my opinion, all this takes is some creative thinking, and lots of testing / balancing. What i know for sure is that pre t4 experiences should not influence decisions on upcoming ones. With the increased size of the fleets, fights from back then have no say on how a fight would look now.

DHB WildCat
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2008.02.29 15:49:00 - [54]
 

Edited by: DHB WildCat on 29/02/2008 15:49:03
bump

Sprzedawczyk
Posted - 2008.02.29 19:08:00 - [55]
 

Originally by: EVETV spiralJunkie
Originally by: DHB WildCat
Some ideas Ive been thinking about..... Here you go atropos.

Arena is the entire grid.... have a fast ship? Use it for your gang to warp to. OMG you mean we have to scramble to hold our targets 8)?

Allow ten man teams but enough points to were you can see 5 Battleship, 5 support ship groups. I think it would be fun to see some heavy firepower.

Allow Rigs!!!!! OMG why dont we already do this!?

Anyways some ideas, just as a teaser. These are some examples I like but others may dissagree with so that is why a group of people to decide will be better than one person.

WildCat



completely off the top of my head, and bear in mind I think allowing tactical warping is a great idea for the combat itself, but I think a big reason we don't do this is that warping breaks lock, and it means we'd lose the lock fro the camera ship, and would have to reaquire it, messing up the shot.


Isn't CCP well, a PROGRAMMING COMPANY?
Why not let player council set up the rules and LET ATROPOS CODE HP REPORTING FOR PARTICIPANTS? OR LET HIM DESIGN IT and tell some programmer to code it?

Darknesss
V0LTA
VOLTA Corp
Posted - 2008.02.29 19:34:00 - [56]
 

I think this idea could work, but perhaps to nullify any advantage that could be gained from members or alliances involved in setting the rules, have an attending GM write an incredibly detailed and accurate report of what was discussed and what ideas were being thrown around.

So you have people who are clued in suggesting and setting boundaries, but also on the same day publicly informing all of eve via forums what was discussed.

Serge Tahlon
Gallente
eXceed Inc.
Minor Threat.
Posted - 2008.02.29 19:36:00 - [57]
 

i hate to say it, ccp, but your players know better how to play your game :)

that is absolutely no offence intended.

i think the list is a great choice ... to start with... it is not that i dont like what you are doing with the tourneys but i think even more player involvement, especially from experts of the highest order, could make for an even better experience.

Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
Posted - 2008.02.29 22:07:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Sprzedawczyk
Originally by: EVETV spiralJunkie
Originally by: DHB WildCat
Some ideas Ive been thinking about..... Here you go atropos.

Arena is the entire grid.... have a fast ship? Use it for your gang to warp to. OMG you mean we have to scramble to hold our targets 8)?

Allow ten man teams but enough points to were you can see 5 Battleship, 5 support ship groups. I think it would be fun to see some heavy firepower.

Allow Rigs!!!!! OMG why dont we already do this!?

Anyways some ideas, just as a teaser. These are some examples I like but others may dissagree with so that is why a group of people to decide will be better than one person.

WildCat



completely off the top of my head, and bear in mind I think allowing tactical warping is a great idea for the combat itself, but I think a big reason we don't do this is that warping breaks lock, and it means we'd lose the lock fro the camera ship, and would have to reaquire it, messing up the shot.


Isn't CCP well, a PROGRAMMING COMPANY?
Why not let player council set up the rules and LET ATROPOS CODE HP REPORTING FOR PARTICIPANTS? OR LET HIM DESIGN IT and tell some programmer to code it?


i would imagine it would be possible to make a "spotter" client

and rigs would be nice, although the 5 man remote rep battleship gang would be Confused

Sprzedawczyk
Posted - 2008.02.29 22:53:00 - [59]
 

How the hell people coming from such diverse backgrounds as those listed by Wildcat could agree to conspire on something? Other than knowledge of the game, they don't have a single thing in common. They wouldn't need detailed reporting, they would need bloody CCP moderator to keep them from biting each other throat.

Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
Posted - 2008.03.01 00:03:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: Sprzedawczyk
How the hell people coming from such diverse backgrounds as those listed by Wildcat could agree to conspire on something? Other than knowledge of the game, they don't have a single thing in common. They wouldn't need detailed reporting, they would need bloody CCP moderator to keep them from biting each other throat.


have you ever say played halo with your friends or something? ever drop dirty names at them?

i still say the heads of bob and goon are the same people.

that and i hope that they know its an internet spaceship game. and to not take it seriously

just wondering did any fights break out at fanfest Laughing


Pages: 1 [2] 3

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