These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Bob Shaftoes
TURN LEFT
#61 - 2013-04-11 15:03:39 UTC
Bluemelon wrote:
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.


3 per ship was designed for the 10-12 man AT tourneys.

With 3 duplicate ships it allows for teams stack more of the most broken ships in a class ( see, maulus, merlins, triple golem etc )

Allowing only 2 duplicate ships would mean comps would have to differentiate more and require different tactics
Seldarine
Resolute Supremacy
#62 - 2013-04-11 16:20:44 UTC
Bob Shaftoes wrote:
Bluemelon wrote:
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.


3 per ship was designed for the 10-12 man AT tourneys.

With 3 duplicate ships it allows for teams stack more of the most broken ships in a class ( see, maulus, merlins, triple golem etc )

Allowing only 2 duplicate ships would mean comps would have to differentiate more and require different tactics


It is definitely something worth being discussed, ill add it to the agenda for our SCL meeting this weekend.
Anaphylacti
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#63 - 2013-04-11 17:13:32 UTC
Definitely see less 3 bs rush teams and more minma rush (command ships and t1 variant) setups with a 2 ship type limit


t1 eafs and eafs being similarly pointed I don't think this limit is going to really stop people from stacking mauluses/keres.


in a way it would make bans more meaningful since you have to field more ship types for a full comp. a single vindi ban would stop a 3bs vindi/kronos rush.
Kumq uat
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#64 - 2013-04-12 08:16:16 UTC
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.


Yeah. We ended up having some issues because of that. A rotating setup would let the action be even faster paced and give the teams competing time to do setups, pee, grab some food, whatever. The finals will take a bit longer but that is fine. Just allows for more betting and all of that. For the earlier rounds though a rolling setup that is smartly done would take the stress off of the teams a bit and allow for more ships exploding in a shorter amount of time.
Admiral Goberius
Horde Vanguard.
Pandemic Horde
#65 - 2013-04-12 13:08:38 UTC
Finals could still be alternated with 3rd/4th spot match.
Bacchanalian
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#66 - 2013-04-12 17:34:49 UTC
Or we could save most of our interviews and such until that portion of the day. Either way, it's doable.
Cavalira
Habemus
#67 - 2013-04-12 17:59:53 UTC
We, Repcartel, found ourselves sit and wait for a long time inbetween some matches, due to interviews. Interviews are fine, but they shouldn't delay the tournament. You'd have to tell whoever you're interviewing, that you WILL stop after a certain amount of time, so you're not looking rude.

fsfadsfasdfdsf ghtrehtrhs ht
Bacchanalian
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#68 - 2013-04-12 18:13:24 UTC
Cavalira wrote:
We, Repcartel, found ourselves sit and wait for a long time inbetween some matches, due to interviews. Interviews are fine, but they shouldn't delay the tournament. You'd have to tell whoever you're interviewing, that you WILL stop after a certain amount of time, so you're not looking rude.

fsfadsfasdfdsf ghtrehtrhs ht


To be fair, while Rep Cartel was ready, we had other teams that we were waiting on more often than not. As far as I can remember, REP were the ONLY team consistently ready before the timer and not in need of constant 2 minute and 1 minute warnings. So you were something of an outlier.
Suleiman Shouaa
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#69 - 2013-04-12 21:57:59 UTC
For Match 3 vs PL we needed every second and then some (one Legion had an offlined web).
Kumq uat
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#70 - 2013-04-13 04:32:43 UTC
Suleiman Shouaa wrote:
For Match 3 vs PL we needed every second and then some (one Legion had an offlined web).


For match 3 against PL we got yanked out of station before I was ready. Luckily someone had brought cap charges for my Loki, not that it mattered. I never got a rep cycle off.