These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Syndicate Competitive League 4

First post
Author
EVE-Bet Kryptyk
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#21 - 2013-08-13 10:48:04 UTC
Great news!

EVE Bet will be offering the same fixed odds betting that we did for ATXI!
Alsyth
#22 - 2013-08-13 11:20:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Alsyth
Nothing to prevent the sentry meta? :'(
-175km wide arena
-limit to one drone link augmentor per ship (or zero?)
-allow more bans (6 in total?)
could have been interesting solutions.

Unless you want Domi/Ishtar/Gila/NavyVexor to be necessary bans to anyone who is not interested in fighting a sentry-only tournament? That's four bans...
Bei ArtJay
Side Kicks
Trigger Happy.
#23 - 2013-08-13 11:55:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Bei ArtJay
Woot.

Why the change to 10 people instead of 8? The removal of cap transfers certainty makes it more of a challenge for tinkers.

Not complaining, just curious.

Also, Duaity!
Alsyth
#24 - 2013-08-13 13:46:08 UTC
How many pilots in each teams?

Fifteen?
Elendar
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#25 - 2013-08-13 16:19:23 UTC
Bam Stroker wrote:
I couldn't see this explicitly in the rules (that's a big wall of text so sorry if I missed it) but is there a limit on the number of characters that each team can have on their roster?


Looks like we missed this, we'll update the thread with the exact details after we've discussed this but yes there will be a limit, expect this to be around 20-25 characters and likely the roster will need to be submitted by a week before the tournament starts.

As for the change from 8 to 10 people this was done to bring SCL closer to the meta of the alliance tournament; ideally we want the tournament metagame to evolve over time and be reasonably consistent between tournaments so teams can adapt over time not just over single weekends leading to setups like tinker and drones being countered by setups and skill rather than points changes or hard bans.

We also feel that the larger size is more exciting to watch as it makes tactics like the af swarms and mass cruisers more viable. We compromised on 10 rather than 12 as this keeps SCL different from the AT and makes it easier for teams to compete and practice with 20 people needed for a full practice session rather than 24.

From this point we plan to run SCLs the middle of every month, this should mean that even teams who have trouble practicing internally for tournaments can use the SCL itself as tournament place practice. Also more chances to win shiny things.
Anaphylacti
SniggWaffe
WAFFLES.
#26 - 2013-08-13 16:24:50 UTC
So the 3% implant rule was put in place to limit the cost to participate in the AT. Given that this is going to occur on sisi will this rule still be in effect or can we bump it up to the previous 5-6 and named implants (slot 6-10, zor's, etc... not snakes, slave)???
Faife
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#27 - 2013-08-13 16:35:32 UTC
Anaphylacti wrote:
So the 3% implant rule was put in place to limit the cost to participate in the AT. Given that this is going to occur on sisi will this rule still be in effect or can we bump it up to the previous 5-6 and named implants (slot 6-10, zor's, etc... not snakes, slave)???


no
Faife
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#28 - 2013-08-13 16:45:02 UTC
since everyone else is double posting:

you guys should let us use 6%s, zors, and other named implants. anything to raise DPS up and give non-drone teams a shot is a good idea.

also, lower the cost on recons. there's a reason that like 3 flew in AT total
Ryu Chaos
SniggWaffe
WAFFLES.
#29 - 2013-08-14 21:20:09 UTC
Any chance to do it on duality?

@RyuChaos_

Lorren Canada
High is the Way - But all eyes are Upon the Ground
#30 - 2013-08-15 13:08:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Lorren Canada
Question answered in OP nvm
Aegon Blackfire
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#31 - 2013-08-15 17:11:07 UTC
Faife wrote:
since everyone else is double posting:

you guys should let us use 6%s, zors, and other named implants. anything to raise DPS up and give non-drone teams a shot is a good idea.

also, lower the cost on recons. there's a reason that like 3 flew in AT total



We are discussing this. We have not yet reached a decision quite yet . However, as it stands the tournament ui is currently configured to allow 3% implants, so even if the SCL staff do decide to allow 6% hardwirings, etc. I am not sure we would be due to the technical aspects of the ui.
Aegon Blackfire
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#32 - 2013-08-15 17:14:06 UTC
Ryu Chaos wrote:
Any chance to do it on duality?


We cannot. Duality is part of CCPs rotation of floating test servers and they can't promise that it will be kept in a state that is ready for use.
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#33 - 2013-08-15 21:03:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Elise Randolph
Elendar wrote:
Bam Stroker wrote:
I couldn't see this explicitly in the rules (that's a big wall of text so sorry if I missed it) but is there a limit on the number of characters that each team can have on their roster?



As for the change from 8 to 10 people this was done to bring SCL closer to the meta of the alliance tournament; ideally we want the tournament metagame to evolve over time and be reasonably consistent between tournaments so teams can adapt over time not just over single weekends leading to setups like tinker and drones being countered by setups and skill rather than points changes or hard bans.



That sounds good, but the actions of SCL don't really line up with this "meta-preserving" message. I mean no team can adapt to Tinker setups in the SCL because Tinker teams were deemed Not Fun To Watch by the SCL and have been hard-banned as a result. Especially ironic since the Tinker, which has essentially become one of the few core tournament archetypes, was one of the ways we saw Drone-based teams countered. Teams that did well in SCL knew perfectly well how to get around Tinkers in ATXI as a direct result of their involvement and some teams even toyed with Tinker-Control crossovers. But now...not so much.

I will continue to participate in SCL because it's a fun thing to do, but after canceling SCL 4 with 3 days notice and implementing a draconian archetype banning policy, it is becoming more clear that SCL is very far removed from "Eve Tournament prep"

~

Apathetic Brent
TURN LEFT
HYDRA RELOADED
#34 - 2013-08-15 21:59:53 UTC
Elise Randolph wrote:
Elendar wrote:
Bam Stroker wrote:
I couldn't see this explicitly in the rules (that's a big wall of text so sorry if I missed it) but is there a limit on the number of characters that each team can have on their roster?



As for the change from 8 to 10 people this was done to bring SCL closer to the meta of the alliance tournament; ideally we want the tournament metagame to evolve over time and be reasonably consistent between tournaments so teams can adapt over time not just over single weekends leading to setups like tinker and drones being countered by setups and skill rather than points changes or hard bans.



That sounds good, but the actions of SCL don't really line up with this "meta-preserving" message. I mean no team can adapt to Tinker setups in the SCL because Tinker teams were deemed Not Fun To Watch by the SCL and have been hard-banned as a result. Especially ironic since the Tinker, which has essentially become one of the few core tournament archetypes, was one of the ways we saw Drone-based teams countered. Teams that did well in SCL knew perfectly well how to get around Tinkers in ATXI as a direct result of their involvement and some teams even toyed with Tinker-Control crossovers. But now...not so much.

I will continue to participate in SCL because it's a fun thing to do, but after canceling SCL 4 with 3 days notice and implementing a draconian archetype banning policy, it is becoming more clear that SCL is very far removed from "Eve Tournament prep"


I do apologize for the short notice on the cancellation of SCL 4. As to your other point about banning, when have we ever been anything but flexible? We really really appreciate your continued support, and if any of these new implementations become an issue we're more than willing to review and/or revise.
Namamai
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#35 - 2013-08-15 22:07:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Namamai
Elise Randolph wrote:
That sounds good, but the actions of SCL don't really line up with this "meta-preserving" message. I mean no team can adapt to Tinker setups in the SCL because Tinker teams were deemed Not Fun To Watch by the SCL and have been hard-banned as a result. Especially ironic since the Tinker, which has essentially become one of the few core tournament archetypes, was one of the ways we saw Drone-based teams countered. Teams that did well in SCL knew perfectly well how to get around Tinkers in ATXI as a direct result of their involvement and some teams even toyed with Tinker-Control crossovers. But now...not so much.

I will continue to participate in SCL because it's a fun thing to do, but after canceling SCL 4 with 3 days notice and implementing a draconian archetype banning policy, it is becoming more clear that SCL is very far removed from "Eve Tournament prep"

First, the serious answer as an SCL representative:

As you know, SCL4 will be taking place on Sisi, which almost certainly will have Odyssey 1.1 mechanics. Odyssey 1.1 will include significant changes to the strength of tanking ganglinks, as well as significant buffs to local armor tanking. Given these changes, we were not 100% confident of how the Tinker meta would change; we felt that it was a safer choice to ban it for SCL4, in case Tinkers became significantly overpowered as a result of the local tank changes.

If it turns out that energy transfer Tinkers are not overpowered in Odyssey 1.1, we will consider allowing them again for SCL5.

(FWIW, I personally think that 1.1 in its current form will be a nerf to Tinkers. But, 1.1 is not yet set in stone, and banning them was the safe choice for today.)

Furthermore, Tinkers can technically be built with nos instead of energy transfers. (Since your team fielded a nos-based tinker in the Fanfest PvP tournament, I'm sure that you're already aware of its strengths and weaknesses.) That meta is still available to you, should you choose to run it.

---

Next, the less serious answer as a member of Rote:

"BAWWWWW, I can't take a three-month-old winning meta and copy-paste it into tournaments and collect first prize with no thought." God forbid you actually have to theorycraft for a new environment. Abloobloobloo.

But let's be honest: the only reason you like tinker setups is because it guarantees that you won't fly out of the arena.
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#36 - 2013-08-15 23:07:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Elise Randolph
Namamai wrote:
Elise Randolph wrote:
That sounds good, but the actions of SCL don't really line up with this "meta-preserving" message. I mean no team can adapt to Tinker setups in the SCL because Tinker teams were deemed Not Fun To Watch by the SCL and have been hard-banned as a result. Especially ironic since the Tinker, which has essentially become one of the few core tournament archetypes, was one of the ways we saw Drone-based teams countered. Teams that did well in SCL knew perfectly well how to get around Tinkers in ATXI as a direct result of their involvement and some teams even toyed with Tinker-Control crossovers. But now...not so much.

I will continue to participate in SCL because it's a fun thing to do, but after canceling SCL 4 with 3 days notice and implementing a draconian archetype banning policy, it is becoming more clear that SCL is very far removed from "Eve Tournament prep"

First, the serious answer as an SCL representative:

As you know, SCL4 will be taking place on Sisi, which almost certainly will have Odyssey 1.1 mechanics. Odyssey 1.1 will include significant changes to the strength of tanking ganglinks, as well as significant buffs to local armor tanking. Given these changes, we were not 100% confident of how the Tinker meta would change; we felt that it was a safer choice to ban it for SCL4, in case Tinkers became significantly overpowered as a result of the local tank changes.

If it turns out that energy transfer Tinkers are not overpowered in Odyssey 1.1, we will consider allowing them again for SCL5.

(FWIW, I personally think that 1.1 in its current form will be a nerf to Tinkers. But, 1.1 is not yet set in stone, and banning them was the safe choice for today.)

Furthermore, Tinkers can technically be built with nos instead of energy transfers. (Since your team fielded a nos-based tinker in the Fanfest PvP tournament, I'm sure that you're already aware of its strengths and weaknesses.) That meta is still available to you, should you choose to run it.

---

Next, the less serious answer as a member of Rote:

"BAWWWWW, I can't take a three-month-old winning meta and copy-paste it into tournaments and collect first prize with no thought." God forbid you actually have to theorycraft for a new environment. Abloobloobloo.

But let's be honest: the only reason you like tinker setups is because it guarantees that you won't fly out of the arena.


While "we're banning tinkers because their tank gets categorically worse, but you can still tinker anyway nerd because you sort of did it in 6-mans " is quite a funny response, I was referring to this statement:
Quote:
As for the change from 8 to 10 people this was done to bring SCL closer to the meta of the alliance tournament; ideally we want the tournament metagame to evolve over time and be reasonably consistent between tournaments so teams can adapt over time not just over single weekends leading to setups like tinker and drones being countered by setups and skill rather than points changes or hard bans.


SCL is quite free to ban whatever they deem Not Fun, it's just hypocritical to simultaneously ban an archetype and masquerade as some AT/NEO resource. I find it bizarre that SCL duders are so adamant about hiding behind these made-up reasons for banning Tinker teams. Now the reason is "Odyssey 1.1 changes makes it very confusing", yet HACs and Command Ships get a significant change and the points layout just stays there. Just say "hi it's boring to commentate two tinker teams so we're banning them, get dunked you noskill tinker trash" and end it instead of beating around the bush with a different nonsensical excuse each time.

SCL is fun to compete in, I'm glad it's around. Just embrace the by-the-seat-of-your-pants nature and stop trying to trick yourselves that you're something you're not.

~

Alsyth
#37 - 2013-08-16 00:08:46 UTC
AT/NEO could also adopt this "no energy transfer rule" and ban tinkers, so I don't see how SCL experimenting makes it less of a preparation for AT.

SCL should experiment even more to force us to adapt in my opinion. With 1.1, and winter expansion with changes to EAS, marauders, etc. learning to adapt is the best SCL can provide.

Fixing the tinker is good.
Fixing the sentry OPness would be good (wider arena, limiting to one DLA...)
Changing points for some underused ships (EAS bombers & Recons) would be good too.
Namamai
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#38 - 2013-08-16 00:09:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Namamai
Elise Randolph wrote:

SCL is quite free to ban whatever they deem Not Fun, it's just hypocritical to simultaneously ban an archetype and masquerade as some AT/NEO resource. I find it bizarre that SCL duders are so adamant about hiding behind these made-up reasons for banning Tinker teams. Now the reason is "Odyssey 1.1 changes makes it very confusing", yet HACs and Command Ships get a significant change and the points layout just stays there. Just say "hi it's boring to commentate two tinker teams so we're banning them, get dunked you noskill tinker trash" and end it instead of beating around the bush with a different non-nonsensical excuse each time.

SCL is fun to compete in, I'm glad it's around. Just embrace the by-the-seat-of-your-pants nature and stop trying to trick yourselves that you're something you're not.

You seem to think we're just shrugging and letting the dice roll. Please allow me to correct that.

HACs have stayed at their old point values for a reason. While HACs may be improving in the general Eve landscape, we believe that most of the changes do not significantly affect tournament meta. (I don't expect anyone to field Vagabonds, for example, or active-tanked Deimoses.) The only HAC that may be broken at its current point value is the Ishtar -- and we're willing to wait and see, and adjust as needed for SCL5.

The Command Ships are a bit more debatable, especially since traditionally we've only seen a few of them used frequently in previous tourneys. The Sleipnir has gotten slightly worse, the Eos has gotten significantly better, the Damn and Claymore a little better, Vulture about the same. Speaking strictly personally, I think CSes could afford to be bumped up by one point; however, as a group, we'd prefer predictability. Again, the fact that we're trying to run more frequently than AT affords us a bit of flexibility. We can see how the meta develops this month, and if things are broken, there's always the next SCL.

As for the rest of your response, I'll just say: You seem to be excessively incensed. I suggest some Chivalry.

Edit: After all, PL beat Hydra without tinkers. I'm quite sure you guys will do fine.
Apathetic Brent
TURN LEFT
HYDRA RELOADED
#39 - 2013-08-16 03:52:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Apathetic Brent
Not only that, but we're wanting to keep HAC point the way they are because we want to see them fielded. If they're OP we want the participants to exploit them so that the rest of EVE can get a preview of what's coming up.

Edit:
To a certain extent we've always manipulated points towards what we want to see fielded. For instance; Faction battleships and bombers in SCL 3. Half of the determining factors when it comes to point values come from trying to "balance" things, and the other half come from what do we want to see teams fielding. We want it to be an ever changing landscape where people can explore their options.
Alsyth
#40 - 2013-08-16 11:14:20 UTC
So I guess you are fine with recons, bombers, BCs, T1 logis and EAS not being used at all, and are content with Gila & Navy Vexor being the only faction cruisers used (with few vigilants). You also love this sentry meta and want to see it dominate SCL4?