EVE Alliance Tournament Discussion

Out of curiosity, which one is the third team?

Also, I agree that AT ships should be adjusted point wise. They are way too cheap for their possibilities.

Some people say "everyone can get a malice!" but at first there are 64 teams and only 50 malices possible therefore this is clearly false. More, say cut the teams down to 32, you can have two of the ship in a match leaving the possibility of only some teams having two while others only having one. In a tournament there should be the POSSIBILITY of each team having the same ships even it it costs a ton. With alliance tournament ships this cannot be the case no matter how you wrangle it.

More! If a ship is very very good, then it is in the interest of the people who won it not to give it out to teams who might use it against them *duh* they then can use it in future alliance tournaments greatly increasing their chances at winning 50 more shinny ships.

I'm not opposed to there being bling on the feild or the teams having to spend an insane ammount of money on ****. But they should have to spend it on 'infinite' items like officer mods. Anyone *could* get an officer mod and over an infinite period of time there would be an infinite ammount of them, but over the same period of time there can only ever be 50 malices.

Now it wouldn't matter if these ships were at all balanced, but consider the malice. You can hear commentators say the malice has equivalent nueting to a curse, a curse is worth 13 points but the malice is only 4 so by bringing a smaller ship you save 9 points and get the same benefit. By this logic the malice should be easier to kill then the curse, but it ain't. Infact it is way harder to kill than a curse, more over it fills the slot of a regular assault frig more than aptly and can put out good damage and tackle. So you also get a assault frig out of it, that is 17 points of ships you replaced with a 4 point ship, that can do the job BETTER than the other ships.

This makes no sense to say its fair to be in game, it would be if there was an infinite amount of the ships but still cost 90b because then everyone could have one.

The Unbalanced nature of these ships is clear to everyone who watched the Exodus vs Camel match, not only would Exodus have won but Camel would have been destroyed with any other 4 point ship in its place. The camel logi would go down the exodus logi would start repping their BSs and maybe 1 of the exodus BSs would have gone down for the 2 camel, the Exodus support wing would have stayed alive and cleaned up the Camel team. But because there was a SINGLE malice on their team they neuted out the logi and caused the match to go the way it did. Put in a curse in that match less points elsewhere and could be killed fairly easy, put in a curor its place and that ship would have been blown up, ETC with other ships.

I have watched every AT i could, i love the AT and consider it better than other esport type events, but that single match made me not want to watch the rest of this one and future ones, why? because i know in matches that will be a good fight a AT ship will be brought and instead we will have a mockery of an tournament.

Commentators went on about the 'clean execution' of camel. There was no clean execution on camels part. There was no O WOW THAT WAS AWESOME PILOTING! there was simply malice. I do not say this to imply that camel is not a great team, it is. I say this simply to say that they lost this match if they didn't bring a malice, bad piloting or out comped or whatever the reason.

What a pile of shite.

All the malice gave us in that matchup was flexibility. If we replaced it with a tech II ship, we would have adjusted our tactics accordingly and still would have won the match.

All the malice gave you was 17 points for 4 points, a curse worth of neuts at better tank ontop of an enemy logi. Don't kid around you got tons from it not just flexibility.

Again i don't think you are a bad team, i would have loved to see you field a team against exodus without an AT ship and beat them handily which i believe you could have. But with the AT ship in there what you might have done doesn't matter only that you used an unbalanced AT mechanic which is inherently unfair and promotes repeat winners rather than actual competition. If AT ships as they are right now are allowed it gives repeat winners a huge advantage.

Edit: Also you bring a different ship and change tactics, who is to say the other team doesn't change also based on that? What might have happened if you brought something else doesn't matter as it can not be affirmed or shown to be false. All we can see is that the malice had an disproportionate impact on the match for its point value and comparable hulls.

A merlin having same point cost as rifter, a typhoon fleet issue having same point cost of armageddon navy issue...

so you agree theirs at least a B team ? just not a C team?

Maybe i don't understand your point but im trying to here. Is your point that comparing any ships to a ship not regularly used in the meta is pointless IE merlin vs rifter? Because of the fact that the rifter is useless and therefor even if it had 1 point would not be used?

If this is the case then my point still stands. If you compare a merlin and rifter they have the same basic worth even if the meta for the rifter isn't good. BUT a Malice and a Retribution do not have the same base worth therefore should not have the same base point cost.

for example freki and utu are much better than those other ships that you compared them too and should cost more than those ships, and this has nothing to do with the current meta. If next year the meta is compatible with a Freki and not a Malice the point cost to the comparable hulls should still be higher for both. Just because something isn't used this meta round doesn't mean it is *worth* less points than one that is being used as long as they have the same base worth taking meta out of the equation.

If i still misunderstand your point please help me out i really do want to understand.

My overall point is that it is ridiculous to support AT ships in the AT as it stands now, an AT ship is not comparable to the ships it has been grouped with in point cost. Raising the point cost might solve the problem but would need to be tested to see how it works out. Im not a "BAN IT NIAO" type of guy, but rather make a change test it next AT and hopefully it will fix the problem. I just can't understand how people actually think it is balanced the way it is now (unless they are merely fooling themselves or lying on purpose to maintain an advantage)

Just like you had separate bans, and separate comps. Right?

so you're telling me that all those exact same bans, all those exxact same setups both your teams ran in every match were just coincidence, and you two telling each other to run the same setup to not give anything away is nonsense? There was absolutely no communication between your teams on which setups to run, which bans to make? OK good, because in my book that would be classed as collusion, and epople who do it are shitbirds who spoil the tournament for everyone.

I mean, its not like you guys havent been banned for heavily bending the rules before. I guess you keep getting around it though by bending more rules when it suits you.

I mean really, look at yourselves, and consider if what you are doing is giving both of your teams an advantage so you both can get prize ships. If there is any doubt there at all, you should be very worried that youre breaking a collusion rule. If i was in hydra, I would be.

Put all of that aside, put the fact that we want to beat you aside, I want you out of the tournament. Every single person I have spoken to has said the same thing, HYDRA ruin the tournament for everyone else. The tournament would be a lot better without you.

lol.

thanks for not denying you running the exact same setup.