These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Alliance Tournament Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

SCL Rules and Meta: Thoughts for the future?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Seldarine
Resolute Supremacy
#21 - 2013-04-09 10:42:55 UTC
Bacchanalian wrote:
Thoughts on the following:

Pirate BS -- 20
Marauders -- 19 (18?)
Faction BS -- 18 (17?)
T1 BS and Black Ops -- 16

I'm kicking that around. Maybe Black Ops at 17? I think it makes sense to break the BS hulls out into 4/5 tiers anyway, regardless of the exact point values. I'd need to sit down with our entire roster of tweaks to see what it does to various popular comps, but yeah.


Only issue I see with this, is that when the new BS changes go live on the test server we will obviously have to allow their use in the tournament, and the changes make some of the tech1 BS very viable tournament ships imo.

Not as good as Pirate, but quite possibly as powerful as a navy faction.
Blast x
Doomheim
#22 - 2013-04-09 10:44:41 UTC
Bacchanalian wrote:
Blast x wrote:
wondering how does it fair in the meta a 2 point frig sitting at 90km bringing your logi to 11km lock range .


I just felt like splitting hairs.


never not +5 Charisma

EAF / Bomberz 4 points
Griff/Maulus/Crucifier/vigil 3points

ATM 25points worth of EAF's like frigs valued at 10points

Bob Shaftoes
TURN LEFT
#23 - 2013-04-09 11:31:53 UTC
Seldarine wrote:
Bacchanalian wrote:
Thoughts on the following:

Pirate BS -- 20
Marauders -- 19 (18?)
Faction BS -- 18 (17?)
T1 BS and Black Ops -- 16

I'm kicking that around. Maybe Black Ops at 17? I think it makes sense to break the BS hulls out into 4/5 tiers anyway, regardless of the exact point values. I'd need to sit down with our entire roster of tweaks to see what it does to various popular comps, but yeah.


Only issue I see with this, is that when the new BS changes go live on the test server we will obviously have to allow their use in the tournament, and the changes make some of the tech1 BS very viable tournament ships imo.

Not as good as Pirate, but quite possibly as powerful as a navy faction.


Yep, this is basically as is, in terms for the t1 BS. Once they get rebalanced then I think you are going to have to bump them up a bit to 17/18 points.
Bob Shaftoes
TURN LEFT
#24 - 2013-04-09 11:40:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Bob Shaftoes
Blast x wrote:
wondering how does it fair in the meta a 2 point frig sitting at 90km bringing your logi to 11km lock range .
how is that more skill intensive then managing cap chains and or neuts and or ecm and or 15 active modules with 11 reps that need to be keybind and or having ability to heat them in short ammount of time while keeping your t1 hulls alive.

there will always be rock papper scissors unless there are mirror games of rush teams.


Yes because kiting in a 3k a second tech 1 ship in a limited arena with support chasing you, drones aggroing you and pretty much no tank while having to coordinate with 2 other ewar frigs + your own frig support + your dps and logi is clearly easier than orbiting a target at 500 and putting reps on the enemy primary or spreading jams on the 8 enemy ships.

You PL guys are fantastic at the meta game and we got totally outcomped in the final match but please don't sit there and try to claim that your vexor circlejerk is more pilot intensive than our comp as that's a pile of bullshit.
Blast x
Doomheim
#25 - 2013-04-09 12:26:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Blast x
Bob Shaftoes wrote:
Blast x wrote:
wondering how does it fair in the meta a 2 point frig sitting at 90km bringing your logi to 11km lock range .
how is that more skill intensive then managing cap chains and or neuts and or ecm and or 15 active modules with 11 reps that need to be keybind and or having ability to heat them in short ammount of time while keeping your t1 hulls alive.

there will always be rock papper scissors unless there are mirror games of rush teams.


Yes because kiting in a 3k a second tech 1 ship in a limited arena with support chasing you, drones aggroing you and pretty much no tank while having to coordinate with 2 other ewar frigs + your own frig support + your dps and logi is clearly easier than orbiting a target at 500 and putting reps on the enemy primary or spreading jams on the 8 enemy ships.

You PL guys are fantastic at the meta game and we got totally outcomped in the final match but please don't sit there and try to claim that your vexor circlejerk is more pilot intensive than our comp as that's a pile of bullshit.


tbh we kindda ownd you guys realy badly ..no need to feel bad thou ..maybe next time try something more complex?brawl setups are for tq lowsec as far as i recall as most new players start at 0 range activating all the mods hopeing something die.
i mean ..atleast a vexor.

:D

trolling asside the +5 charma in the previous post wasant my "angry" face the duder was realy nice into tryng to explain why mauluses do this do that but . it was obvious my post no? (i was hopeing didnt have to explain that mauluses DO target past 90km anywho)

didnt come to argue ..hopeing for a balancing of points since atm makes no sence spending 25 when you can have same resuslts with 10 and spend more on other stuff

o7
Bob Shaftoes
TURN LEFT
#26 - 2013-04-09 13:32:42 UTC
Blast x wrote:
tbh we kindda ownd you guys realy badly ..no need to feel bad thou ..maybe next time try something more complex?brawl setups are for tq lowsec as far as i recall as most new players start at 0 range activating all the mods hopeing something die.
i mean ..atleast a vexor.

:D

trolling asside the +5 charma in the previous post wasant my "angry" face the duder was realy nice into tryng to explain why mauluses do this do that but . it was obvious my post no? (i was hopeing didnt have to explain that mauluses DO target past 90km anywho)

didnt come to argue ..hopeing for a balancing of points since atm makes no sence spending 25 when you can have same resuslts with 10 and spend more on other stuff

o7


Yep, fair enough and I hope Ewar frigs do get points nerfed too even just to keep stuff fresh.

Tyrrax Thorrk wrote:
Bob how do you know the sensor strength of the PL Proteus and do you have their permission to publically post specifics about their setup ?

That aside it's not as simple as you're claiming , it's never just rock paper scissors, and fielding neuts / ECM does not automatically make your setup garbage against everything except one type of setup.
PL's circle jerk setup beat my circle jerk setup by using ECM, was over quite quickly and onesidedly so I wouldn't call that boring to watch.

Lots of cap xfer can make for a difficult to break setup yes , but doesn't look to me like the people hurf blurfing about it have much of a clue on the subject, anything can be beaten - and those setups that will beat it don't have to be pure counters that won't work against any other lineup. (Setup designer has to be pretty terrible for that to be the case)



I know roughly how the PL proteus was fit by the configuration of the subsystems and by an image that gobbs posted of it during the match. Someone on my team calculated that with the diso sub + 2 local eccm + 2 remote eccm + max skilled would bring the sensor strength to something like 350 before heat and therefore around 400+ with heat. 2 info war linked ( proteus, max skills + electronic sup link ) griffins with 4 multispecs each and optimized for max jamming only jammed the logi proteus once, and even then the griffin died mid jam cycle.

I have no idea what you mean about "not having permission" to disclose the PL fit. I was the team captain of the rep cartel team and I can pretty much do whatever I want.

Its true that a neut /smartbomb heavy setup might not be garbage, but one that is focused heavily on defeating circlejerking is leaving itself quite vulnerable to almost all dps kiting / rush setups. Its not going to stop me from going back to the drawing board and figuring out how to beat these things while keeping a decent team together but it certainly isnt going to be easy.

Again i need to reiterate I am not mad about the outcome. ( although some members of my team are quite angry about it ) I simply want EVE esports to expand and gain viewers by creating interesting content for people to watch. it would be cool if my team and I could live off this stuff ( IRL and in eve ) if it suddenly takes off and teams get major sponsorship. Circlejerks are simply not interesting to watch and drive away viewers

Cavalira
Habemus
#27 - 2013-04-09 13:46:51 UTC
Bumping EWAR frigs to 3 points...

Why not exchange all the ewar frigs out for sabres? They can be double damp fit and apply fine dps.
Anaphylacti
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#28 - 2013-04-09 16:20:23 UTC
So, Logi frigates are almost completely nonexistent in this meta. Perhaps with the team sizes being what they are this wouldn't make sense but what if there was a cumulative points total for logistics ships rather than 1 single ship per team.

The idea being that given this option you could tinker with setups that have 1 t1 cruiser logi and 1 t1 frig logi and the frigates and other ships can be two separate, more independent squads or multiple frig logis. Of course, I don't have the entire idea fully fleshed out but some basic thoughts would be :

- making sure that teams are only capable of fielding a single t3 or t2 logi.
- giving enough points to allow at least 1 t1 cruiser logi and 1 t1 frig logi

So, for the current rule set the rule would be:

-teams are allowed one logistics ship or a combination of logistics ships that equal a cumulative value of no more than 12 points

also +1 nerf ewar frigs
penifSMASH
ElitistOps
Deepwater Hooligans
#29 - 2013-04-09 17:02:57 UTC
Bob Shaftoes wrote:
Blast x wrote:
tbh we kindda ownd you guys realy badly ..no need to feel bad thou ..maybe next time try something more complex?brawl setups are for tq lowsec as far as i recall as most new players start at 0 range activating all the mods hopeing something die.
i mean ..atleast a vexor.

:D

trolling asside the +5 charma in the previous post wasant my "angry" face the duder was realy nice into tryng to explain why mauluses do this do that but . it was obvious my post no? (i was hopeing didnt have to explain that mauluses DO target past 90km anywho)

didnt come to argue ..hopeing for a balancing of points since atm makes no sence spending 25 when you can have same resuslts with 10 and spend more on other stuff

o7


Yep, fair enough and I hope Ewar frigs do get points nerfed too even just to keep stuff fresh.

Tyrrax Thorrk wrote:
Bob how do you know the sensor strength of the PL Proteus and do you have their permission to publically post specifics about their setup ?

That aside it's not as simple as you're claiming , it's never just rock paper scissors, and fielding neuts / ECM does not automatically make your setup garbage against everything except one type of setup.
PL's circle jerk setup beat my circle jerk setup by using ECM, was over quite quickly and onesidedly so I wouldn't call that boring to watch.

Lots of cap xfer can make for a difficult to break setup yes , but doesn't look to me like the people hurf blurfing about it have much of a clue on the subject, anything can be beaten - and those setups that will beat it don't have to be pure counters that won't work against any other lineup. (Setup designer has to be pretty terrible for that to be the case)



I know roughly how the PL proteus was fit by the configuration of the subsystems and by an image that gobbs posted of it during the match. Someone on my team calculated that with the diso sub + 2 local eccm + 2 remote eccm + max skilled would bring the sensor strength to something like 350 before heat and therefore around 400+ with heat. 2 info war linked ( proteus, max skills + electronic sup link ) griffins with 4 multispecs each and optimized for max jamming only jammed the logi proteus once, and even then the griffin died mid jam cycle.

I have no idea what you mean about "not having permission" to disclose the PL fit. I was the team captain of the rep cartel team and I can pretty much do whatever I want.

Its true that a neut /smartbomb heavy setup might not be garbage, but one that is focused heavily on defeating circlejerking is leaving itself quite vulnerable to almost all dps kiting / rush setups. Its not going to stop me from going back to the drawing board and figuring out how to beat these things while keeping a decent team together but it certainly isnt going to be easy.

Again i need to reiterate I am not mad about the outcome. ( although some members of my team are quite angry about it ) I simply want EVE esports to expand and gain viewers by creating interesting content for people to watch. it would be cool if my team and I could live off this stuff ( IRL and in eve ) if it suddenly takes off and teams get major sponsorship. Circlejerks are simply not interesting to watch and drive away viewers



Everyone played with the same set of rules, points system, arena, etc so conditions were even and you are complaining about PL not playing "the right way". This is why you are stuck in low-sec or something, whoever Rote Kapelle is
Bacchanalian
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#30 - 2013-04-09 18:06:08 UTC
Seldarine wrote:
Bacchanalian wrote:
Thoughts on the following:

Pirate BS -- 20
Marauders -- 19 (18?)
Faction BS -- 18 (17?)
T1 BS and Black Ops -- 16

I'm kicking that around. Maybe Black Ops at 17? I think it makes sense to break the BS hulls out into 4/5 tiers anyway, regardless of the exact point values. I'd need to sit down with our entire roster of tweaks to see what it does to various popular comps, but yeah.


Only issue I see with this, is that when the new BS changes go live on the test server we will obviously have to allow their use in the tournament, and the changes make some of the tech1 BS very viable tournament ships imo.

Not as good as Pirate, but quite possibly as powerful as a navy faction.


Absolutely, but AFAIK we won't see that on Sisi until after our next iteration in May. If that changes, you're obviously correct we'll have to adjust.
Suleiman Shouaa
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#31 - 2013-04-09 22:08:24 UTC
Point rebalancing for hulls needs to change, for example Tech1 Battleships. Best way to figure out which hulls these are is by looking at ship usage stats (if you keep an eye on such things). If not, a short list:

Tech1 Battleships
Black Ops BS
Tier 3 Battlecruisers
EAFs
Bombers

All could do with a 1-2 point reduction. I agree that the Tech1 Ewar frigates need to have their points adjusted by 1 to 3 as they are simply too good.

I would probably suggest putting a hard limit of 1 cap transfer on each hull to reduce the proliferation of perma-spider setups as at the 8 man stage with only 3-4 real DPS ships, breaking them is very, very difficult if they are accompanied by the correct bans. They don't make for entertaining matches for most people IMO, which is one of the things Eve struggles with when trying to attract new players.

Btw fantastic job with the tournament.
Bacchanalian
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#32 - 2013-04-09 22:55:59 UTC
Suleiman Shouaa wrote:


I would probably suggest putting a hard limit of 1 cap transfer on each hull to reduce the proliferation of perma-spider setups as at the 8 man stage with only 3-4 real DPS ships, breaking them is very, very difficult if they are accompanied by the correct bans. They don't make for entertaining matches for most people IMO, which is one of the things Eve struggles with when trying to attract new players.

Btw fantastic job with the tournament.


More to the point, when you can effectively ban out the two highest DPS platforms in the subcapital lineup, it's even worse. I think estimates of tank numbers on that setup I've heard thrown around were somewhere in the 5k range. Breaking 5k DPS with Vindi/Kronos bans and a setup that is something that would survive long enough to apply that DPS is extremely challenging in the context of our ruleset, so I agree, something needs to be done about the cap xfer issue. Limiting to 1 is an option we have on the table, though we're looking at a couple of possibilities.
SpeedY G0nZaleZ
Just a side dish
Outspoken Alliance
#33 - 2013-04-10 00:58:23 UTC
To better finely balance the points you could start using .5 values for some of the smaller ships such as destroyers which appear to me to be worth 2.5 points.

I love the idea of splitting points for pirate / navy / unique ships instead of blanket "faction". Increasing the points on EWAR frigates.
Adding in all the ships and lowering the points for industrials/bombers/hics. Rooking (and faction rookie) ships would be cool to have for 1 point and might even be moderately useful.

Some other things you could consider may be the size of the arena, number of pilots on field, allowing 2 logistics, one cruiser, one frigate.

If you really want to shake things up then MJDs, larger arenas, unique ships, 16 man / 110 point teams. You can try the gimicks and see how they go.

Oh and more points / ships is a good way to counteract turtle tank setups.
Bacchanalian
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#34 - 2013-04-10 01:05:50 UTC
MJDs are allowed. As far as I know at least one team was on the verge of fielding an MJD setup but changed at the last moment and another team had one in reserve that they opted not to field.

As for double logistics--there's a very good reason AT4 was the last time we saw those. They made for terrible matches and had exactly the same issue we're trying to address with the tinker tank setups--turtle setups that were extremely difficult to break and the possibility existing of turtle vs turtle leading to a stalemate that could in theory go on infinitely.

We had kicked around the notion of further granulating the points down to half points, or simply doubling the cap and current points, but I'm not sure that's going to solve any of the issues we're facing--it would simply shake up the meta.

I think our priority for now is solving the issues that became obvious in week 2, and after that we'll sit down to look at broader changes like format, arena size, time limits, etc. We're currently working on and should have by tomorrow a full spreadsheet of all shiptypes fielded as well as how many of them died, and which were banned, and that should give us a good idea of what ships might need reconsideration either because they were extremely popular, or not fielded at all.
SpeedY G0nZaleZ
Just a side dish
Outspoken Alliance
#35 - 2013-04-10 01:08:45 UTC
WRT having a cruiser and a frigate logistics on field I don't think that would cause too many issues. Two cruiser logistics would be unbreakable.
Tyrrax Thorrk
Guiding Hand Social Club
#36 - 2013-04-10 01:27:25 UTC
Bob Shaftoes wrote:
I know roughly how the PL proteus was fit by the configuration of the subsystems and by an image that gobbs posted of it during the match. Someone on my team calculated that with the diso sub + 2 local eccm + 2 remote eccm + max skilled would bring the sensor strength to something like 350 before heat and therefore around 400+ with heat. 2 info war linked ( proteus, max skills + electronic sup link ) griffins with 4 multispecs each and optimized for max jamming only jammed the logi proteus once, and even then the griffin died mid jam cycle.


Oh so you were just making **** up, good to know.
DHB WildCat
Out of Focus
Odin's Call
#37 - 2013-04-10 02:39:57 UTC
My thoughts.

Your point system is fine tbh! I admit maybe the t1 ew frigs need to be higher, but honestly thats it.

What would solve this problem!? Go to the 10 man 100 pt system.

I dont care how strong your circle jerk is then, you are not tanking 10k dps. This is the one time I think I'll ever say this in EVE. More is better. Tinker tanking is strong against few opponents. But fail against many.
Anaphylacti
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#38 - 2013-04-10 03:14:07 UTC
Bacchanalian wrote:
Suleiman Shouaa wrote:


I would probably suggest putting a hard limit of 1 cap transfer on each hull to reduce the proliferation of perma-spider setups as at the 8 man stage with only 3-4 real DPS ships, breaking them is very, very difficult if they are accompanied by the correct bans. They don't make for entertaining matches for most people IMO, which is one of the things Eve struggles with when trying to attract new players.

Btw fantastic job with the tournament.


More to the point, when you can effectively ban out the two highest DPS platforms in the subcapital lineup, it's even worse. I think estimates of tank numbers on that setup I've heard thrown around were somewhere in the 5k range. Breaking 5k DPS with Vindi/Kronos bans and a setup that is something that would survive long enough to apply that DPS is extremely challenging in the context of our ruleset, so I agree, something needs to be done about the cap xfer issue. Limiting to 1 is an option we have on the table, though we're looking at a couple of possibilities.


You do realize that the tinker tank wasn't perfect and that it was defeated. Also, the fact that this tournament takes place in the course of two days and hardly gives time to properly test and prepare a counter compared to the weeks time you get in normal AT, months time really in the span of an entire AT. We were shown that you can kill the tinker tank if you don't take such a ham-fisted approach like "MOAR DEEPS".

Are you going to ban the next comp that heavily relies on certain modules because other teams weren't good enough to come up with a counter? Where do you draw the line? Why not just pre-fab some rock-paper-scissors comps for us and make them the only option all in the name of "having fun and putting on a good show".

A single weekend's results is definitely not enough time to make such sweeping changes. In fact, module restrictions should be the absolute last resort when it comes to balancing.
Bacchanalian
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#39 - 2013-04-10 03:26:16 UTC
Two days? We announced the dates well in advance as far as I know. And we've already announced the next one as mid-May. That's a lot of time to prepare.

As for the tinker tank, yes, it was countered. By a very pointed setup designed specifically to counter the tinker tank and pretty much crushed by any other cookie cutter setup. So teams are faced with the choice--bring the tinker counter every time and hope that's what they face, or bring another setup and hope they don't get tinker tank. It's a bit too rock paper scissors in my personal view, and while the piloting involves skill, at the end of the day the setup is strong enough that minor mistakes won't lose the match for the tinker setup. In a lot of the matches we saw counters fielded and lose because of piloting error. It would take an egregious mistake for a tinker setup to lose to most setups that weren't specifically designed to counter it.

I don't know if we're going to change anything as of yet, but can you come up with a way for two tinker setups to end in anything other than a stalemate? As far as I can see they can permanently run everything, so barring a lucky jam here or there and a frigate getting blapped, you'd have a 10 minute stalemate that under our current rules would go on until a single ship died--which could be downtime. That more than anything is what I want to avoid. It's less the tinker v *, it's the tinker v tinker that is an absolute nightmare in terms of a) viewer interest, b) being able to have SOMETHING to talk about as a commentator, and generally not being the most boring display imaginable.

Keep in mind we're planning to run this tournament on a monthly/6 week basis, and as such little tweaks from one tournament to the next will happen to keep things fresh. PL is a very strong team and I have no doubt that your theorycrafters will come up with extremely strong setups no matter what we do with the rules, so I'd not be so worried. And if we change something that has an unintended effect or breaks the format a bit? We change it back the next time and search for another solution. The benefit we have that the AT/NEO do not is that we run this often enough that we can make these changes with a bit more freedom.

Believe me though when I say we aren't looking to completely wipe that sort of tanking out of the tournament. We just want to balance it a bit more so there is more than one counter to it, for instance an overwhelming DPS setup (which as far as I can see would not have beaten it under the current rules).
Blast x
Doomheim
#40 - 2013-04-10 04:30:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Blast x
Bacchanalian wrote:
Two days? We announced the dates well in advance as far as I know. And we've already announced the next one as mid-May. That's a lot of time to prepare.

As for the tinker tank, yes, it was countered. By a very pointed setup designed specifically to counter the tinker tank and pretty much crushed by any other cookie cutter setup. So teams are faced with the choice--bring the tinker counter every time and hope that's what they face, or bring another setup and hope they don't get tinker tank. It's a bit too rock paper scissors in my personal view, and while the piloting involves skill, at the end of the day the setup is strong enough that minor mistakes won't lose the match for the tinker setup. In a lot of the matches we saw counters fielded and lose because of piloting error. It would take an egregious mistake for a tinker setup to lose to most setups that weren't specifically designed to counter it.

I don't know if we're going to change anything as of yet, but can you come up with a way for two tinker setups to end in anything other than a stalemate? As far as I can see they can permanently run everything, so barring a lucky jam here or there and a frigate getting blapped, you'd have a 10 minute stalemate that under our current rules would go on until a single ship died--which could be downtime. That more than anything is what I want to avoid. It's less the tinker v *, it's the tinker v tinker that is an absolute nightmare in terms of a) viewer interest, b) being able to have SOMETHING to talk about as a commentator, and generally not being the most boring display imaginable.

Keep in mind we're planning to run this tournament on a monthly/6 week basis, and as such little tweaks from one tournament to the next will happen to keep things fresh. PL is a very strong team and I have no doubt that your theorycrafters will come up with extremely strong setups no matter what we do with the rules, so I'd not be so worried. And if we change something that has an unintended effect or breaks the format a bit? We change it back the next time and search for another solution. The benefit we have that the AT/NEO do not is that we run this often enough that we can make these changes with a bit more freedom.

Believe me though when I say we aren't looking to completely wipe that sort of tanking out of the tournament. We just want to balance it a bit more so there is more than one counter to it, for instance an overwhelming DPS setup (which as far as I can see would not have beaten it under the current rules).


as some other duder said on the other thread ..viewer interests can't be set to brawl teams or tinker teams or thingyes explodeing or complex setups.
its limiting ..some ppl watch for "explosions" some ppl watch for intense complex battles ..(i enjoyed all of the games ) and while it is true our combo wasant easily beaten specialy by raw dmg ..what sort of strong setups loose to full on raw dmg ? tunneled vision into only brawl setups isn't .. fun. while i agree eve isnt a crit based game ..forceing it to be just that ..a crit based raw full dps game is a poor choice for something called tournament.
but then your only choice is to set up rules and regulations and then be amaysed of what ppl bring ...and dont make mistake thinking ppl dont bring their best setups to WIN ..not only to loose ..funny part is that when we had the sleip rush tank wich is kindda hard countered by the blasters .. everybody started explaining why we flown badly ..when fact is ..rock >>scissors tank.how would have that been more "entertaining" playng catch me mwd around the arena for 10 minutes?waiting for that elussive mistake of some frig of the enemyes?we gracefully accepted it a loosing battle with a filler setup and charged it for the "fun" of the viewers.
cant expect ppl to bring bad setups just to make sure some ppl "enjoy" viewing ..unless its all fixed and decided on the board whom wins and whom doesnt.
its the same as sayng box matches should be won in the first brawl or put in a cage 1 light duder against a heavy duder.regardless if we are on the winning side.
in the end its up to you guys decideing whats the "best" course of action but limiting strong setups just becouse ppl cant adapt its wierd :D

ps. "for instance an overwhelming DPS setup" this sort of thinking makes me smile abit more then i should ..not becouse isnt fair or genuine ..but becouse its soo unpolished :D its always reminds me of "how big boys do battle" rear admiral norbanks way of aproaching a delicate and tactical intensive while wonderfully complex combat situation