CCP Fozzie looking for Input!

pvp

(Gorion Wassenar) #1

“Hey Alliance Tournament junkies! I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts about rules. What did you like from previous years? What do you feel is getting stale? What would your dream hypothetical AT ruleset look like? #tweetfleet #eveonline


(Dyver Phycad) #2

Great for doing that on Twitter and not the official forums.

With regards to feedback: The Amarr Championship setting was the best, most entertaining and exciting setting of all tournaments so far. Rule based ship composition and not the one winning machine over and over again. Lots of different setups in every match because of changing rule requirements. This made the Amarr Championship better than most AT.


(Makshima Shogo) #3

Love any AT that has ton’s of fleet comp diversity nothing worse than seeing drone ship comp after drone ship comp.


(Chan'aar) #4

@CCP_Fozzie

Seriously, what the hell?

How many times has a CCP staff member posted something to a 3rd party site, be it reddit, forums, twitter, faceache or whatever which has caused a stink BECAUSE OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION SHOULD GO THROUGH THE OFFICIAL FORUMS!

FFS @CCP put it here first!


(Nana Skalski) #5

Caldari have tradition of competitive sports, so maybe we should see a State sponsored event?


(Nana Skalski) #6

They cant, they killed the forums. :sweat_smile:


(Mr Rive) #7

I honestly liked some of the things you tried with the Amarr Championships.

I think the ruleset you have now is pretty solid, with the odd balance changes and points changes. The problem is, although the ruleset is solid, the format hasn’t really changed in ages. It’s become a very different experience than it was when you (fozzie) were theorycrafting for the AT. Right now it’s about 90% pilot and FC skill/luck and 10% theorycrafting. If that’s how you want the AT to be, thats fine, you got it. Personally, I think theorycrafting is as much a part of the AT as piloting is. You can’t really theorycraft much when year on year the rules only have minor points changes.

I’d love to see some other kind of matchups, for instance in the playoffs, you could do amarr championship style matches, where teams have to theorycraft an optimum setup from 5 ships. This would stop theorycrafting from becoming stale, and would force teams to consider what their testing priorities are.

The bigest problem imo with the AT ruleset right now is you can basically copy setups from the strongest teams, do very little theorycrafting, and through luck manage to beat a superior team simply by copying a hard counter to what they bring.

I think it would make an interesting exercise to see what happens if instead of banning ships, you ban ship classes (eg t2 battlecruiser). This would also massively open up the number of viable comps, because you can easily get around certain bans as it is. You really can’t get around a full ship class ban. In fact the more I think about it, the more I think this might be the most interesting change you could make. It might completely screw things over, idk, I just thought of it.

I guess basically what I’m saying is, depending on what kind of alliance tournament you want, you’re either going to have to do something fairly drastic to shake things up (eg amarr ahampionship type rules for certain matches, class bans, whatever) or keep things relatively the same, with just a few points changes.

I think you know I would vote for a fairly drastic change. It brings in a whole new type of metagame that we havent seen in half a decade.

In all, as long as there is another AT I don’t mind too much!


(CCP Fozzie) #8

I’m reading community input everywhere I can (including here). I decided to go with a tweet for this particular request since at this stage it’s an unofficial/informal discussion not a formal announcement of any kind.

I’d definitely be interested in your opinions wherever you post them.


(Mike Azariah) #9

Instead of reverse tidi for overtime pull a fortnite and diminishing field radius.

Racial archetypes, relive faction warfare with random draw, you fight amarr, you fight galllente etc.

m


(Sentient Blade) #10

Go all hunger-games on them with traps, make the arena much more engaging than a hollow sphere.

Use the command burst mechanic to apply AoE buffs / debuffs to certain areas, a gas pocket that breaks locks on you when you enter it , floating structures which damage nearby ships when you explode them, short-range acceleration gates that function like MJDs.

If you really wanted to do something special litter the arena with scoopable one-shot “nanite containers” that can be brought back to the main fleet for added bonuses, assuming the ships trying to collect them don’t get shot down by the opposing team first.

Also, don’t forget the obligatory minefield.


(elitatwo) #11

Oh that sounds cool! Like one team can only bring Amarr and the other only Gallente or whatever the draw is.


(Rikki Bigg) #12

Have you ever considered a scaling point system, dependent on the number in the overall composition?

As a potential example (that really shouldn’t be implemented, without serious consideration in how much it might slow down fights) : Logistics Frigates/Cruisers. Currently you can field two Logistics Frigates, or one Logistics Cruiser, T1 or T2 irrespective, at a point cost of 2, 5, 12, 17, points respectively. Instead, the first two T1 support frigates could be used at a point cost of 2 each, and a third could be used at an inflated point cost of ‘x’. Or perhaps the first T1 support frigate would have a point cost of 2, while the second has a slightly increased cost of ‘y’, and the third a much more inflated cost of ‘z’.

This could be applied to multiple area’s of composition building, such as ewar (potentially allowing damp scripts again, if the second ship bonused for damps was penalized, disincentivizing stacking); or battlecruiser or bomber stacking; or even ‘stacking’ penalties across a spectrum of T1 disruption Frigates, Electronic Attack Frigates, T1 disruption Cruiser, and Recon Ships: Modules have a stacking penalty the more they are used in a fit, why not ship composition having a stacking penalty when found in a small gang situation?

This might allow more than 2 ships of any ‘name’ if a team is willing to spend the points that might weaken other areas of the composition. This would also provide more risk if a ship is then banned.

While on the topic of risk, after the indroduction of Antipharmakon boosters, followed by the release of ‘Agency’ boosters, drugs might be a consideration to allow. While they would still be somewhat mandatory for optimization, it would provide choices for players: a small assured bonus without penalty, or a much larger bonus with a potential (potentially drastic) side effect. It is not quite as binary as ECM, but can be a calculated risk vs reward effect in composition building, assuming the current reason for disallowing is the burden of cost for use by a team.

P.S.
I tried to think of a polite way to compare the cost of boosters for the event vs the cost of limited edition tournament reward ships to defend the banning of drugs due to cost to teams as a limiting factor, but was unable to. I still defend the right to ban drugs on the grounds they are too expensive for teams, if that is the actual reason for disallowing them <3


(sharpscg) #13

Changes I would like to see:

  • Keep the point reduction for a certain faction. This rule has made some ships viable, that we would not have seen otherwise. Just dont make that faction something that has drones or rapid heavy missile launchers. My favorite would be Imperial navy, Napocs and Ngeddons everywhere!

  • Keep 3 bans for later matches, they have been a very necessary tool in an age where there are both more ships and more tournament prize ships to choose from.

  • Increase BS and NBC cost slightly. 2 years of BC dominance in a row is enough.

  • Lower BS and Command Ship cost slightly. A battleship heavy meta is a lot more interesting, since positioning and screening matters a lot more with the more cumbersome battleships, compared to the good tracking ridiculous range BCs we had recently.

  • Keep drone rules as they are. While many people argue for the removal of T2 drones, I think they are fine as they are. Ways of countering drone setups exist, even with higher BC cost (smartbombs, rapid lights, jams…)

  • lower T3C cost a lot. Ban T3C logi. We have never see combat viable T3C in the tournament. I would love to see this change. Due to the large amount of different fittings possible, it should make for some interesting new setups.

  • lower logi cost slightly. This is maybe a controversial one, but I think the meta of lots of long range buffer tanked ships without any logi is not a healthy one. It limits gameplay options severely and makes the matches too straight forward. Shaving one point off the logi cost should make them more competitive again.

  • Consider lowering destroyers/interdictor/T3D/Assault friagate costs slightly. I would like to see big support wings return. In my opinion they make for more interesting gameplay than just stacking up on cheap ECM/Damps/Tracking Disruptor/ECCM frigs for the lower end of a setup. I dont think this would be overpowered either, as drones, rapid lights and grapplers are still great counters to smaller ships.

  • keep low recon costs. Last year was the first time we saw the odd curse , huginn or rook. This has been a great addition to the depth of viable comps.

Looking forward to the next tournament o7


(Makshima Shogo) #14

Miss seeing attack BC, would reducing their point’s help in them being seen more often, I remember a very old AT with a Talos gang was amazing to watch ^_^, think it was Shadow Cartel.


(Caleb Seremshur) #15

If the match times out the two teams pick their best fighters who 1v1 with assault frigs.


(Chan'aar) #16

The trouble is, once you post anything with a CCP tag, it can be interpreted as official. I apologise for sounding like an ass but this kind of thing has happened so many times over the years. CCP staffer posts something somewhere, it is taken out of context or people that are not in that particular communication medium raise hell.

Post things to the official forum first ALWAYS.


(zluq zabaa) #17

no. in an early stage it is better to collect feedback through channels that will provide mostly quality replies. the forums are too full of people taking every opportunity to reply to everything any ccp member writes. see this thread and how many people did not reply with any input.

for AT:
• allow up to 3 Logi Frigates to make them less of a niche choice
• increase BC cost slightly, apart from Attack BC
• alternatively: stacking point cost. more than 4 ships per class: additional point cost
• get rid of T2 heavy drones
• module point cost for flagships to put pressure on the stale bhaal meta


(Gosti Isagar) #18

I eould love to see a comeback of the old bracket system, where it mattered how many points you were actually getting during a fight.

Also, maybe to shake things up, increase the banning to not only ships, but whole shiptypes or groups, like say no gallente or armor logistic, or no blood raider ships. You could set some groups that could get banned


(Makshima Shogo) #19

Are people allowed to use something like a rabisu for a flag ship btw? Always wondered why they don’t, although officer tanked AT logi might be more than just broken.


(Soldarius) #20

Couple quick suggestions:

  • leave AFs at 4, I’d like to see what they can do with the new ADC. Same for HACs.
  • Increase the cost of NBCs. They are too cheap for what you get out of them.
  • Significantly decrease cost of T3Cs. They are way overpriced now that they’ve been rebalanced.
  • Speaking of T3C rebalance, could you allow remote reps on them this year? tia
  • HICs are a bit overpriced imo. Maybe make them cheaper?