These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Anaphylacti
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#41 - 2013-04-10 06:41:02 UTC
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.

...

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).


Two days as in they saw the comps people would bring on the first day, then they had 24 hours to devise some sort of way to counter it if they didn't already prepare a counter.

Again... the ham-fisted approach... sure you could nerf everything so that everyone only brings triple faction bs setups and the only meta is overwhelming dps. There will be tons of explosions and stuff for you to talk about but it won't be very fun to watch when every team brings the same setups. There will be less strategy, variation, or thought involved. Tinker tank was specifically designed to counter overwhelming dps and overwhelming dps shouldn't be the answer to everything. the previous and still current meta is all triple faction bs and you are saying that that should be a valid counter to all things.

The counter we saw to the turtle tinker is still valid in different matches given that blasters are also really popular in the current meta.

There are other counters for the tinker it's just that people weren't prepared/ couldn't figure them out.
Bacchanalian
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#42 - 2013-04-10 07:25:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Bacchanalian
On the flip side, it will be an equally boring tournament if everyone shows up in tinker tanks rather than overwhelming DPS. Smile

We want balance, not ham-fisted nerfs. I have no idea what we're going to do, but I literally have the most radical views on the changes of anyone in the SCL staff, so don't think that because I've said I'm thinking about something we're going to do just that. I'm a worst-case scenario kinda guy that identifies the worst possible problem that could arise, which is useful for identifying issues but less useful for coming up with coherent, sane, and gentle solutions that don't rock the boat overly much. We have others on the staff better suited for that. I tend to throw out radical ideas and they get tuned down to sane options by other perspectives.

That said, it's safe to say that the exact current tinker tank meta will likely not survive. It may exist in a slightly altered form, but something will most likely change to shake it up a little. Fine-tuning is part of the process here, and much like CCP, we want to challenge the teams to devise new and creative strategies from tournament to tournament rather than simply coming back with the same tried and true metas. You'll see similar things in any eSport I can think of. In SC2 nerfs and buffs happen and change the meta from tournament to tournament, in LoL new champions come out, items are adjusted, minion HP and AI is altered, champions are balanced--all of these change metas and strategies and challenge the teams to devise new strategies. While EVE also does change things up (and may well have the new battleships on Sisi by the next tournament, though I suspect they won't land until later in May/early June after week 3), it makes sense for us to alter the rules a bit from week to week to keep things fresh.

As I said before though, PL has some brilliant tacticians and a very strong team. I was briefly in PL during tournament season and was in the tournament forums for a while and got some insight into the sorts of theorycrafting and effort that goes into your teams and it is quite impressive. I have no doubt that no matter what we do with the rules, PL will come to the table with some of the strongest team comps and strategies of anyone in the tournament and everyone will be learning from what you do.

EDIT: I should also mention that we've completed our stats compilation on ships flown/banned/destroyed and will be taking a look at that. It should make apparent the things we're already discussing re; bombers/EAFs/ewar frigs and probably highlight some other things we may have missed.
Admiral Goberius
Horde Vanguard.
Pandemic Horde
#43 - 2013-04-10 08:48:40 UTC
Bacchanalian wrote:

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.


No.

We countered our own golem tinker easy peasy in our match vs dystopia. No neuts involved.

This thread was supposed to be about point balance but instead you got FHC babby coming back with his rant about tinker setup and thats all the last page has been about.

Frankly there are many weaknesses to a turtle tank but the existence of this kind of setup enriches the meta because it is a strong counter to kiting high damage setups such as 2 stage sleipnirs or double tanked machs that would otherwise dominate the tourney (see: scl 1).


The problem isnt tinker tanks the problem is stalemates. Every game has a system to detect and handle stalemates, from dota to starcraft to freaking chess. No amount of banning will take stalemates completely out of the game. I suggested a stalemate detection system earlier but there are many possible, from shrinking arena to a gradually raising dps field applied to all ships, resists being lowered, ecc...
Lucas Quaan
Dark Enlightenment
New Eden Alliance 99013733
#44 - 2013-04-10 08:50:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Quaan
FIWI, I agree completely with Bacchanalian on the gradual tweaks bit. Change is good and makes the theorycrafting/meta so much more interesting. Since it's on on a bi-monthly schedule and everything happens on SiSi, this gives you an opportunity to try some stuff and have a fun tournament now and then that is more relaxed than the high-stakes AT.

Sure, sometimes a rule change will be aimed at a specific setup or tactic that you had success with, but then you load up EFT and find another one. It would be sad and boring to see the same setups and a static meta every single time.
Fafer
Tr0pa de elite.
#45 - 2013-04-10 08:50:59 UTC
Let the bans stay for the duration of each best of 3.
Like, ships that were banned in the first fight stays banned for second and third, and on top of that ships banned in 2nd fight stays banned for 3rd.

That would accomplish variety of fielded hulls.
Low SP players have chance to come to masstests.
Fafer
Tr0pa de elite.
#46 - 2013-04-10 09:09:36 UTC
Bacchanalian wrote:
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.


It gives the same end result as on-grid warping, which is forbidden for a reason.
MJDs should not be allowed.
It doesn't matter that they have cooldown timer, in 8v8 within given timeframe of the match once is enough.
Blast x
Doomheim
#47 - 2013-04-10 10:20:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Blast x
when can we have the ruleset and the points thingy ? so we can get the hamsters goin?
:D
Admiral Goberius
Horde Vanguard.
Pandemic Horde
#48 - 2013-04-10 10:57:49 UTC
Fafer wrote:
Bacchanalian wrote:
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.


It gives the same end result as on-grid warping, which is forbidden for a reason.
MJDs should not be allowed.
It doesn't matter that they have cooldown timer, in 8v8 within given timeframe of the match once is enough.




MJD does not break locks so it doesnt affect the camera
Bluemelon
ElitistOps
Deepwater Hooligans
#49 - 2013-04-10 11:38:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Bluemelon
Going to say a few words on behalf of the Insurance Fraud guys,

This tournament we tried to move away from the tripple Maulus/ t1 ewar frig setups and we paid the price for it. These ewar frigs at 2 points each destroy enemy teams on their own as proven by our first match against perihelion.

Control and power vs Points...nothing beats them. This should be addressed as EAF's - Originally a v strong AT ships and very specific to train - are now totally obsolete...especially as a maulus can damp out a keres at way longer ranges.

Next up is the black ops....They are totally obsolete in AT as we also proved other than the Widow...changing the entire class points for a single ship is pointless.

Marauders - Increasing marauders to 19 will nerf alot of setups and start forcing more rush/cruisers/BC setups...if that is the intention then go for it but there will be significantly less slugfests in this case.

Next up is the match organisation: Please please please alternate matches. Going 3 in a row in an hour is not viable and leads to delays and issues with setups and timing.

ALso lets have a 3rd place play off! More space ships blowing up isnt a bad thing!!

As the first saturday was a little dry on matches, would it be possible to maybe run a kind of qualification matches? so the first 4 teams from previous tournament get in....then 8 teams battle it for the remaining 4 places? BO1 only?

Just a thought

Blue
Insurance Fraud SCL Team

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
Cavalira
Habemus
#50 - 2013-04-10 13:35:40 UTC
It's always possible to ban the maulus and griffins.
Fafer
Tr0pa de elite.
#51 - 2013-04-10 14:09:14 UTC
Blast x wrote:
when can we have the ruleset and the points thingy ? so we can get the hamsters goin?
:D


It was said that SCL team will have a meeting this weekend, I would say not before that.

However, I belive enough input has been made here and on the FHC so SCL people kindly make your choices and let us know.
Tyrrax Thorrk
Guiding Hand Social Club
#52 - 2013-04-10 14:10:09 UTC
Bacchanalian wrote:
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.


Uh says who ? Crushed by any other cookie cutter setup ? wat ?
Fafer
Tr0pa de elite.
#53 - 2013-04-10 15:07:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Fafer
Ben Booley wrote:
Elise Randolph wrote:

Single elimination best of 3 is a really fantastic design, if logistically horrifying to compete in. I think you can alleviate some of the burden and increase the overall quality by alternating matches. So on the final day when there was PL vs GHSC and Insurance Fraud vs Reputation Cartel to format could be PL vs GHSC game 1, then IF vs RC game 1, then PL vs GHSC game 2, IF vs RC game 2, etc etc.


I completely agree with this. Will be pitching an adjustment along these lines to the rest of the staff, but I agree that 15 minutes is barely enough time for the teams to prep, and at the same time is about as long as we can do between individual matches.


This.

SCL 1 was double elimination and BO3, and Insurance Fraud flew 16 fight in 2 days, and would have to fly 19 (21?) if there had been no unlucky DCing. (GG anyway, Exodunks) So single elimination is wholehartedly welcomed improvement and please don't rollback.

With alternating fights it would be possible to eat something in peace, make bio, stretch a bit and fights would be more on schedule as teams would be ready. That would probably be handy for audience too, and for SCL organisation team.
Anaphylacti
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#54 - 2013-04-10 17:39:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Anaphylacti
I don't mind specifically tuning the rules to avoid certain comps. My point of contention was the 1 cap transfer limit idea thrown out. There are other ways of eliminating tinker tanks as people suggested, more players, increase ship points, etc..

Like your metaphor, it would be the equivalent of an sc2 tourney saying you are only allowed to build so many zerglings or zealots or marines.

I reiterate, module bans should be the last resort to any rule changes as it not only affects the one comp but others as well and overall kills the creativity a sandbox game like Eve is known for.

Anyway, marauders probably could do with an increase in points and maybe swap points for T1 Battleships and Blops (17 current) with Command Ships and Strategic Cruisers (16 current).


Edit: Also, should probably put a precedent now for faction battlecruisers since they may or may not be available for SCL 3 and I'd like the Gnosis to be included somewhere in there as I like it's jack of all trades/master of none approach and isn't so rediculously overpowered like the AT or pirate noobships that it should be barred from the tourney.
Suleiman Shouaa
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#55 - 2013-04-10 18:17:00 UTC
No doubt that Tech1 Ewar Frigates were the real stars of this tournament, that much utility in a 2 point frigate is pretty insane.

There are examples of tournament rules taking over where game balance hasn't caught up - examples being recently released heroes in Dota not being allowed in competitive play until iteration on them occurs. In Eve where there are multiple "modes" of play it is very easy for something which on TQ is "balanced" due to it being a free environment to be unbalanced in a fixed setting.

Also, why not allow capitals for example? Sure they can be broken with enough DPS and/or Ewar, but I think we can all agree that most comps would struggle against a comp with a capital in it.
Bacchanalian
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#56 - 2013-04-10 18:35:42 UTC
Yeah, the challenge is going to be if the uptdated ships are released on Sisi before the next tournament.

As far as when we'll have the changes ready? I'm waiting to hear from Fozzie (if he can even tell me) if the ship changes will be live on Sisi by our next iteration, but we're planning on having a meeting this weekend and will hammer out the details then. So expect to hear something by Monday.


Also, someone said the black ops were useless--did you miss Pandemic Legion's matches? They used Sins quite effectively...
Seijen
Perkone
Caldari State
#57 - 2013-04-10 21:01:29 UTC
Pandemic wouldn't let us use our Blacks Ops...so scared.
Anaphylacti
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#58 - 2013-04-10 21:17:48 UTC
3rd-4th place fight definitely needs to be included.

As for the first day being a bit light, besides the fact that all matches were 2-0 washouts, perhaps a pole position captains battle royal where bracket seeds will be determined in order of elimination. It adds a bet more strategy and metagaming to the mix as far as what seed you end up in.

The top seeds would get choice of ban order and seeds would go:

1st (last man standing) - 5th (4th elim)

2nd (7th elim) - 6th (3rd elim)

3rd (6th elim) - 7th (2nd elim)

4th (5th elim) - 8th(1st elim)

Although it would probably be gamed to make sure you fight against test for the first round...
Bob Shaftoes
TURN LEFT
#59 - 2013-04-10 23:46:57 UTC
Anaphylacti wrote:
I don't mind specifically tuning the rules to avoid certain comps. My point of contention was the 1 cap transfer limit idea thrown out. There are other ways of eliminating tinker tanks as people suggested, more players, increase ship points, etc..

Like your metaphor, it would be the equivalent of an sc2 tourney saying you are only allowed to build so many zerglings or zealots or marines.

I reiterate, module bans should be the last resort to any rule changes as it not only affects the one comp but others as well and overall kills the creativity a sandbox game like Eve is known for.

Anyway, marauders probably could do with an increase in points and maybe swap points for T1 Battleships and Blops (17 current) with Command Ships and Strategic Cruisers (16 current).


Edit: Also, should probably put a precedent now for faction battlecruisers since they may or may not be available for SCL 3 and I'd like the Gnosis to be included somewhere in there as I like it's jack of all trades/master of none approach and isn't so rediculously overpowered like the AT or pirate noobships that it should be barred from the tourney.


I agree wholeheartedly with this post.

Restricting cap transfers to one per ship would be one of the worst things you can do as it would stifle creativity somewhat and create an artificial barrier in tourney play.

As far as points go I think things should look more like the following:

Pirate BS - 20 points
Marauders - 19 points ( arguably as powerful as faction bs and lots more utility. The gimped resists is the reason for the point drop )
Navy BS - 18 ( 18 or 19 would be a good price point for these as 20 is way too much compared with the pirate ones )
Black ops / t1 BS - 16 ( drop these a point purely to get more use out of them. triple dps BS comps would be interesting too )
CS / tech3 - 16 ( Quite balanced for 16 points )
Recons - 13 ( recons need a bit of love, 14 is too much )

HACs / Faction cruisers / Hics - 10 ( these need a SIGNIFICANT reduction in points. Only the gila and ishtar are really used. If you look at the gap between a mega and a vindi the gap in points is 17-20 points, a gap of 3 for significant improvement. The same difference between a thorax and vigilant is currently 5 points ,which is a whole support ship, and the vigilant isn't as much of a significant improvement for that gap in points. )

BCs - 12 ( 12 is fair for what these hulls can do )
Logi - 13 / 10
Cruiser - 7
Bomber - 5 or 4 ( they need a reduction, but I feel 4 is a bit low )

EAFs / tech 1 ewar - 3 / 4 ( I feel as it stands EAFs and t1 ewar frigs are roughly on par with each other and should be pointed together at either t1 ewar frig at 3 and EAF at 4 or both at 4 )

Intys / Dictors / Dessies - 3
T1 frigs - 2

Another thing I would consider is to reduce the number of duplicate ships down to two of each type. This will produce much more varied comps using a far wider range of ship classes and will stop people stacking ewar frigs especially and the more OP ship types in a class, such as the merlin
Bluemelon
ElitistOps
Deepwater Hooligans
#60 - 2013-04-11 10:34:53 UTC
Bob Shaftoes wrote:


Another thing I would consider is to reduce the number of duplicate ships down to two of each type. This will produce much more varied comps using a far wider range of ship classes and will stop people stacking ewar frigs especially and the more OP ship types in a class, such as the merlin




I do not agree with this in the slightest. 3 per ship type is fine.

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