EVE Alliance Tournament Discussion

 
2 Pages12Next page
 

Proposed rule changes for Alliance Tournament XV

Author
The Tuskers Co.
#1 - 2017-04-15 12:43:18 UTC
CCP has a history of making small tweaks to the Alliance Tournament rules each year. Sometimes this has a major effect on the tournament meta; the ban of scripted damps, the Marauder bastion module, and T2 damage drones completely transformed the meta between AT12 & AT13. Other times it does not have much effect; since we saw that the compositions for AT13 & AT14 were basically the same, just scaled down to 10 pilots. I've put together a list of several key topics that I believe that CCP should consider before releasing the next set of rules.

1. Flagship Rules

A flagship Bhaalgorn is way too powerful currently. A combination of ban immunity, ridiculous scaling with officer mods, and being an armor ship contributed to this. The Bhaal also benefited from a 2 point ship-specific point cost reduction, but even bringing it back in line with the other pirate BS doesn’t really change all that much. The fact that the Rabisu now exists basically makes the Bhaal setups completely unfair.

If you read our AAR from AT14 at http://failheap-challenge.com/showthread.php?21981-The-Tuskers-AT14-Retrospective, you will see that the vast majority of our strategic thinking revolved around the flagship Bhaalgorn, and how we would deal with our opponent's while preserving our own for as long as possible. Now that everyone knows this, the meta for next year will be extremely boring unless the Bhaal is nerfed somehow.

I think potential solutions are:
* Do not allow Bhaalgorn to be a flagship
* Eliminate the ban immunity feature of the flagship
* Greatly increase point cost of the Bhaalgorn (by at least 4 points, possibly more)
* Ban the use of deadspace/officer webs, neuts, and nosferatus on the flagship (but not faction)

Other suggestions have been to make the Flagship take up the AT ship “slot” in any comp. This would eliminate the Bhaal + Rabisu combo, but I think this still leaves us with an AT14 type of situation where the Bhaal is still way too powerful even with a T1 logi. I personally think the first, where the Bhaal is no longer allowed to be a flagship, or even is completely banned from the tournament (like the Nestor) is the simplest.

2. Drones

I believe that a ban of T2 damage drones, possibly even including sentries, is no longer justified today. The major reason drones were so popular in AT11 and AT12 was a combination of:

* Dominix and Ishtar being exceptionally powerful (both ships have since been nerfed)
* Geckos and Medium Augmented Gila drones were way too powerful in AT12
* Drones had at least partial e-war immunity against damps, thanks in part due to the assist mechanic

Both the Domi and Ishtar have also been nerfed significantly since AT11. On top of that, the Gila is no longer a sentry ship, and has itself been nerfed within the past 2 years by removing a low slot. Also, a big reason for the setups to even exist in the first place was the ubiquity of scripted and bonused damps, which no longer exist at all in the tournament.

I think they should allow all T2 drones, and ban Geckos and Augmented drones except on flagships.

3. Ship Points

CCP’s rules have what I call in my internal monologue a “points gap”. Meaning that there are an abundance of ships costing equal or less than 6 points that are useful, a whole bunch of 15-19 point ships that are good, but almost no ships in between that are at all useful within most setups, at least not at the present point value. The Bhaal + BC setup is a notable exception, but the BCs are really only strong there because they are supported by the Bhaal.

Entire ship classes are routinely 100% worthless year after year because of the point value, such as T2 DPS cruisers (except for the Cerb), Pirate and Faction Cruisers (except for the Orthrus), pirate frigates, T1 destroyers, and more. The RLML Cruisers appear to be getting a rather large nerf, which will likely eliminate the need to have elevated point costs specifically to balance the RLML ships.
Pandemic Legion
#2 - 2017-04-15 15:53:34 UTC
I agree with you abouty everything but the bhaal.

Thing is, PL has been using officer bhaals for years. It's been the obvious choice for a flagship for ages. The reason it was so powerful last year was the points bonus.

I don't think removing it from the meta suits the AT at all. I suspect this year we will see a similar thing with the bhaal, but for another pirate BS instead.

If you consider that RHML's and RLML's are getting a nerf too, removing the bhaal removes another class of ship meta from the field altogether.

The bhaal comps are good, but they can be beaten, as we saw last year. They are not undefeatable by a long shot, so they don't control the meta.

The addition of the raibisu only adds a new element that we won't fully understand until we know the points values and the rules. We all know the potential of the raibisu, but we don't know how it will fit that potential yet. Automatically assuming that it will be a complete meta breaker mixed with the bhaalgorn, without knowing the rules, is a bit premature. There may be comps out there which are far more suited to a different kind of flagship/raibisu combo that we currently have no idea about.

I suggest CCP does take into account the power of the bhaal raibisu combo, but doesn't outright ban the bhaalgorn or make the changes suggested in OP. You guys know what ideas you have for the rules already, so you are in a much better position to know if it is OP as hell or not. Certainly take it into account, but changing the rules for a single ship which can be countered seems utterly premature and against the spirit of the tournament.

He is right about certain ship class types though, especially HACs and faction cruisers. If you wanted to reduce the danger of the bhaal, reducing the points costs of certain ships which haven't seen action in years would shake the hell out of the meta, and likely give us a decent counter.

The same can be said for t2 drones. I don't think there is any reason to keep them banned now. The reason you banned them in the first place was to get rid of shotgun setups with t2 sentries and the like. Those aren't possible any more, considering the nerfing of the ishtar and the gila. Even if they are viable, I suspect there are ways to counter them now which weren't available before.

The biggest and easiest way to mix up the tournament is to change points values pretty significantly. IT completely shifts the meta. Right now, theorycrafting is becoming more and more redundant over simple piloting skill. If that is what you want, fine, but to me the tournament is all about theorycrafting new and interesting setups. The easiest and most balanced way to do that is through drastic points redistributions.
Pandemic Legion
#3 - 2017-04-15 15:58:25 UTC
To clarify, I certainly think the bhaal raibasu combo might well be overpowered, but I strongly suspect CCP already knows this. My bet is they will already structure the rules around it. The issue here is not whether it is OP, but whether a blunt solution is the right one. I really don't think it is. The bhaalgorn can be made to work in a ruleset without banning it, as it has for YEARS.
HYDRA RELOADED
#4 - 2017-04-15 17:06:04 UTC
Don't touch flagships, high tier teams have used SNI over bhaals for 2-3 years with good reason. Drones should be brought back to t2/faction with the exception of sentries probably

remove the AT ship allowance back to how it used to be

rebalance eafs, af's, t3d and interdictor points, and hacs and recons


For all your 3rd party needs join my ingame channel Blue's 3rd Party!

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=365230&find=unread

Pandemic Legion
#5 - 2017-04-15 18:13:01 UTC
wtb cheap officer mods

Goddess of the IGS

As strength goes.

Hard Knocks Citizens
#6 - 2017-04-15 19:18:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Capri Sun KraftFoods
Change the rules so that you can only fly t1 battlecruisers and t2 frigates. This will let newer corps stay competitive as they can bring a larger number of people in frigates
Pandemic Legion
#7 - 2017-04-15 19:25:16 UTC
allow nestors because refitting is dead

risk vs reward own your choices
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2017-04-15 20:25:48 UTC
You do know the points were decreased on purpose for the bhaalgorn last year, right?
Because.....it was like....The Blood raider AT?
It'll be same points as other pirate battleships unless this year's host gets less points for their ship.
#9 - 2017-04-15 20:43:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Mai Khumm
So, what you're saying is that you have a shiny setup that requires a complete ban towards a specific ship?

I'm REALLY curious as to what this composition is!
Northern Coalition.
#10 - 2017-04-15 20:47:55 UTC
i think the bhaal needs a point bonus to truly bring it inline with the orthrus. very weak ship all around. sad!
skill urself
#11 - 2017-04-15 20:50:06 UTC
#12 - 2017-04-15 21:28:54 UTC
I like the idea of flag ships being covered on bans, not crazy about the bhalg.

in the interest of throwing the idea out there what about making it a flag ship or AT ship cant field both?

Also Ban ECM drones?

Commander Aze For CSM XII

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=506400

Support the Community #Broadcast4Reps

Exodus.
#13 - 2017-04-16 00:30:00 UTC
Quote:
remove the AT ship allowance back to how it used to be


As much fun as I think this would be, Don't want the matches to be TOO one sided.

Quote:
in the interest of throwing the idea out there what about making it a flag ship or AT ship cant field both?


This seems interesting, what about still allowing both, but fielding a flagship (or AT ship) cost extra points?
#14 - 2017-04-16 16:55:31 UTC
Cephei Kells wrote:
allow nestors because refitting is dead

risk vs reward own your choices


I still wouldn't allow nestors, as the fleet's logi boat... that'd be a beast.
Pandemic Legion
#15 - 2017-04-16 21:34:12 UTC
Suleiman Shouaa wrote:
3. Ship Points

CCP’s rules have what I call in my internal monologue a “points gap”. Meaning that there are an abundance of ships costing equal or less than 6 points that are useful, a whole bunch of 15-19 point ships that are good, but almost no ships in between that are at all useful within most setups, at least not at the present point value.

This has always been an issue and I don't know if you can even do much about it. As long as the format is a fixed number of ships for a fixed number of points you are going to run into issues with the mid-range not being worth it.

A crazy idea that might work would be to only have a limit on total points and not the number of ships, though still only two of each type. That way you could perhaps bring more of the weaker ships without being punished by awkward point layouts. This probably ends up being broken in hilarious new ways, but it would at least shake up that part of the ship range.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#16 - 2017-04-18 22:28:10 UTC
1. IMO Bhaalgorn is not as awe-inspiringly powerful as OP feels. However I agree that for the last two years that it has been an obvious flagship choice. It definitely is one of the better pirate battleships, if not the best. But making a bunch of exceptions for one ship always makes me grimace. I am hoping that having it at 21 points will make it a little less desireable.

2. 100% agree on every single point. I would go on to suggest banning ECM and rep bots completely. They are literally cancer (especially ECM drones), and give armor ships a huge advantage.

3. Again, 100% agree. plenty of options from 2 to 6 points. Almost nothing from 7-10 except navy faction cruisers which almost universally suck ass. 11-13 is all the T2 cruisers and BCs. And then we have nothing except T2 logi cruisers from 14 up to 17. The current point distribution pretty much forces everyone into BS+T3D comps.

4. I would also add that the current point distribution along with having only 10 pilots has put a virtual lock on what kind of comps can be flown. There are a lot of ideas out there that just aren't viable because there are not enough ship slots to break large hull comps like Typhoon Fleet Issues without making unacceptable sacrifices. I would like to see the pilot limit raised back to 12 and points adjusted downwards accordingly. The 2-ship per match rule is fine and good.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

Snuffed Out
#17 - 2017-04-19 09:57:03 UTC
Raising battleship points would make them harder to field and make support wing weaker. The only solution to the point gap is probably that. With 10 people you can field 2 battleship easily with proper support wing. If you take that away and say 2-3 points rise on the battleship point you make those setups a lot harder to field. T3 dessies are beasts with battleships comps.
#18 - 2017-04-20 00:04:25 UTC
Tzuko1 wrote:
Raising battleship points would make them harder to field and make support wing weaker. The only solution to the point gap is probably that. With 10 people you can field 2 battleship easily with proper support wing. If you take that away and say 2-3 points rise on the battleship point you make those setups a lot harder to field. T3 dessies are beasts with battleships comps.

BUT MA 6 MAN HULL RUSH NOOOOOO

Commander Aze For CSM XII

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=506400

Support the Community #Broadcast4Reps

Test Alliance Please Ignore
#19 - 2017-04-21 14:51:59 UTC
I would be happy if we had options at 7, 8, 14, 16, and 17 points. Any options. Any at all. Maybe reduce the cost of T3Cs and CSes?

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

#20 - 2017-04-24 10:07:10 UTC
Regarding #2: Completely agree, bring on the drones!

Regarding #3:

I agree completely that there is an unfortunate gap, and it's led to there being less variety in comps, which I think is unfortunate. If the RLML/RHML changes land before AT, I would love to see the points of the Navy faction cruiser, Pirate faction cruiser, and HAC hulls drop by 2-3 points each.

HIC should definitely be cheaper given the changes to their scrams, and Recons have always been a bit overpriced imo.

Dropping the costs on some of these should go a long way to giving more variety of options in the gap.


Two additional changes I'd love to see:

1. Allow cap transfers, but disallow remote reps on T3 cruisers.

Allowing cap transfers makes for some really interesting pseudo-tinker comps and makes the basi and guardian more interesting as logi choices. The only effect that the ban last year had was that T3 cruisers weren't effective in tinkers anymore, but you could achieve that by just removing them from the list of logi ships. Additionally, then the price of the T3 cruiser could be reduced, which could lead to some really interesting comps.

2. Consider allowing scripted EWAR.

The changes to the EWAR resist link means that damps and TDs are potentially much weaker this year. Allowing scripted ewar would bring them back into parity with their strength from last year.
2 Pages12Next page
Forum Jump