These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Alliance Tournament Ships

Author
Dato Koppla
Kiwis In Space
Dock Workers
#41 - 2015-08-24 12:34:33 UTC
DeadDuck wrote:
The AT ships should have a higher point value then their normal ship classes.

A Ettana having the same point base of a Basilisk, or a Malice having the same point values of a Retribution is laughable.

People all saw the power of these ships yesterday on the Match between Camel and Exodus. The match was won because of the Malice.

It's easy to say that Exodus lost because they made the wrong choices, but go after a 50K EHP frig with very high resistence profile and a sig radius of less then 30m is very risky.

The question is that the same 50K EHP frig has a cost of 4 points the same of their counter parts the classic AF's when in reallity the only thing in common these ships have is the name "Assault Frigate".

You start to see a patern where the teams facing the teams that have access to AT ships have to ban them in order they can have some kind of chance to win. It's the 1st time we are watching bans to Malice's, Etana's, etc..., but there are much more out there.

Yes PL lost a Etanna yesterday, but they won the match easily. After Shadow cartel killed the Etana there weren't much more they could do. Their major DPS ships were dead already. TBH they couldn't do much more then go after that super Logi. The same super logi that costs 13 points, the same has a basilisk...

Yes PL lost a 150B ship but they are on the verge of collecting 50 more BPC's of an AT ship. If you have to lose a 150b ship to win 50 x 150B, that's a good deal.

The years pass and the problem is becoming bigger and bigger: only a few teams have access to these ships, these are starting to be fielded sooner and sooner during the qualifiers (we saw them in day 1 this year).

I'm not in favour of banning the ships. Everyone likes to see them fielded. But CCP really has to do something about their point cost over the other ships of the same class.

A Etana is milles away from a Basilisk, a Cambion is Milles away froma Hawk and so on. CCP should agravate the point cost for these ships and make this move quickly or the AT will become a farse.








This, this and this! When I first saw Malices wrecking another team in some previous AT final, (can't remember which exactly) what dead duck said was exactly on my mind. Banning AT ships outright is stupid since the AT is one of the main places where they shine and get used most. However, they should definitely take up more points, bringing in a Malice which has the neuting power as a 4 med neut pilgrim and 50k ehp for the same points as any other assault frig seems a little ridiculous even if they are stupidly expensive.

There's also the snowballing effect where teams that win have more potential to field these ships in future ATs. Yeah it's possible to buy these ships but you'll never have the flexibility of the alliance that actually won them in the first place making it more and more imbalanced as the same teams keep winning.

Just my 2isk. I'm ready for the wall of flame from Hydra/PL .
Miyamoto Uroki
the king asked me to guard the mountain
#42 - 2015-08-24 12:49:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki
Dancul1001 wrote:
Destoya wrote:
I think you guys might have massively overrated the amount of cooperation that went on (hint: there was none whatsoever)



anyone can look at ships fielded / bans used and see PL def has not alt teams Hydra on the hand has 3 ? :)


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.
Forlorn Wongraven
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#43 - 2015-08-24 13:30:09 UTC
DeadDuck wrote:
numbers that are way off reality

Get good, kid.

Winner ATXI , 3rd place ATXII, winner ATXIII, 2nd ATXIV - follow me on twitter: @ForlornW

Mordirth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2015-08-24 13:44:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Mordirth
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.
Shamis Orzoz
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#45 - 2015-08-24 14:49:56 UTC
Late stage capitalism is a *****.
Bob Shaftoes
TURN LEFT
HYDRA RELOADED
#46 - 2015-08-24 15:00:43 UTC
Mordirth wrote:
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.
Elsa Hayes
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#47 - 2015-08-24 15:04:06 UTC
The alliance tournament has a long standing tradition of fielding prize and bling ships.

The name Tyrrax Thorrk should ring a bell.

Mordirth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2015-08-24 15:12:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Mordirth
Bob Shaftoes wrote:
Mordirth wrote:
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.
Mordirth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#49 - 2015-08-24 15:18:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Mordirth
And of course people who have the advantage will fight to keep it (i would) but from a 3rd party perspective it is inherently unfair. BTW i bet on camel, not because i thought they would bring an AT ship but because i thought they were the better team. This was not shown in any way during the match and i should have lost my bet when exodus won.

I don't post on the forums, like ever. I don't like dealing with legions ;) of posters defending an indefensible position and by shear weight of numbers thinking they are correct. But i had to this time because i really do love the AT and think it would be a thousand times better without AT ships in them.

To the argument 'we gotta let them in because this is the only place they are used'. That isn't really a justification for letting them in the AT, the purpose of AT ships is to give an exclusive prize to the winner, that prize can be put in use many ways on TQ, for example by selling them to collectors for tons of money. Just because they aren't used by player choice on TQ doesn't mean that they can never be or should be given special status.

What i hope and pray to see is a repeat match vs exodus and you guys bringing a legit setup without an AT ship and just shutting them down i think it would be an awesome match to watch. If this matchup should happen you would have my bet again. I just wish it had happened this time.
Kadesh Priestess
the king asked me to guard the mountain
#50 - 2015-08-24 16:25:58 UTC
DeadDuck wrote:
A Ettana having the same point base of a Basilisk, or a Malice having the same point values of a Retribution is laughable.
A merlin having same point cost as rifter, a typhoon fleet issue having same point cost of armageddon navy issue... Roll
Mordirth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#51 - 2015-08-24 16:49:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Mordirth
Kadesh Priestess wrote:
DeadDuck wrote:
A Ettana having the same point base of a Basilisk, or a Malice having the same point values of a Retribution is laughable.
A merlin having same point cost as rifter, a typhoon fleet issue having same point cost of armageddon navy issue... Roll




Clearly we should make everything cost the same because there is a slight disparity between comparable hulls which results in them not being used everything should cost 1 point! Because its not the fact that merlin and rifters have the same tier bonuses and the same *basic* worth, its merely because they aren't optimal for the AT that there should be a cost difference. Your point is incorrect. Anyone willing to actually open their eyes and admit it sees that the malice has far more bonuses and has more worth to it than a retribution who's only job really is to tackle and tackle well. After all, isn't that the point of AT ships? To be OP compared to the same class of hull?

Infact when this years ships were first released there was complaining about them being to.... normal. And not really all that OP.
Dancul1001
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#52 - 2015-08-24 17:12:12 UTC
Miyamoto Uroki wrote:
Dancul1001 wrote:
Destoya wrote:
I think you guys might have massively overrated the amount of cooperation that went on (hint: there was none whatsoever)



anyone can look at ships fielded / bans used and see PL def has not alt teams Hydra on the hand has 3 ? :)


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.


so you agree theirs at least a B team ? just not a C team?
Kadesh Priestess
the king asked me to guard the mountain
#53 - 2015-08-24 17:18:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Kadesh Priestess
Mordirth wrote:
Your point is incorrect.
Hold on, you didn't even get the point i was making. Comparing *anything* it to one of the ****-tier ships in current AT meta will show how ship you've picked is good, and it is getting you nowhere. Freki is much better than jaguar, utu is much better than ishkur, why aren't they used?

Maybe you're looking for answers to your questions in the wrong place? Or your answer is far from being complete?
Mordirth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#54 - 2015-08-24 17:35:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Mordirth
Kadesh Priestess wrote:
Mordirth wrote:
Your point is incorrect.
Hold on, you didn't even get the point i was making. Comparing *anything* it to one of the ****-tier ships in current AT meta will show how ship you've picked is good, and it is getting you nowhere. Freki is much better than jaguar, utu is much better than ishkur, why aren't they used?

Maybe you're looking for answers to your questions in the wrong place? Or your answer is far from being complete?



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)
Miyamoto Uroki
the king asked me to guard the mountain
#55 - 2015-08-24 17:37:30 UTC
Dancul1001 wrote:
Miyamoto Uroki wrote:
Dancul1001 wrote:
Destoya wrote:
I think you guys might have massively overrated the amount of cooperation that went on (hint: there was none whatsoever)



anyone can look at ships fielded / bans used and see PL def has not alt teams Hydra on the hand has 3 ? :)


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.


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


Mate, are you like 17 or smth? That's not what I wrote, I just wanted your personal opinion on that so called third entity.
Besides, apart from Brent there isn't a single player on the camel team that has a Hydra background, okay. We're practise partners and obviously separate entities in all other regards. Can we please get over this?
Doomchinchilla
Collapsed Out
Pandemic Legion
#56 - 2015-08-24 17:58:46 UTC
Miyamoto Uroki wrote:
Dancul1001 wrote:
Miyamoto Uroki wrote:
Dancul1001 wrote:
Destoya wrote:
I think you guys might have massively overrated the amount of cooperation that went on (hint: there was none whatsoever)



anyone can look at ships fielded / bans used and see PL def has not alt teams Hydra on the hand has 3 ? :)


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.


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


Mate, are you like 17 or smth? That's not what I wrote, I just wanted your personal opinion on that so called third entity.
Besides, apart from Brent there isn't a single player on the camel team that has a Hydra background, okay. We're practise partners and obviously separate entities in all other regards. Can we please get over this?

Just like you had separate bans, and separate comps. Right?
Forlorn Wongraven
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#57 - 2015-08-24 18:05:20 UTC
Doomchinchilla wrote:
Miyamoto Uroki wrote:
Dancul1001 wrote:
Miyamoto Uroki wrote:
Dancul1001 wrote:


anyone can look at ships fielded / bans used and see PL def has not alt teams Hydra on the hand has 3 ? :)


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.


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


Mate, are you like 17 or smth? That's not what I wrote, I just wanted your personal opinion on that so called third entity.
Besides, apart from Brent there isn't a single player on the camel team that has a Hydra background, okay. We're practise partners and obviously separate entities in all other regards. Can we please get over this?

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

CCP should increase the time between matches so that the A-team can give the B-team the ships between matches.

Winner ATXI , 3rd place ATXII, winner ATXIII, 2nd ATXIV - follow me on twitter: @ForlornW

Serena Greyskull
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#58 - 2015-08-24 18:14:08 UTC
Miyamoto Uroki wrote:
Dancul1001 wrote:
Miyamoto Uroki wrote:
Dancul1001 wrote:
Destoya wrote:
I think you guys might have massively overrated the amount of cooperation that went on (hint: there was none whatsoever)



anyone can look at ships fielded / bans used and see PL def has not alt teams Hydra on the hand has 3 ? :)


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.


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


Mate, are you like 17 or smth? That's not what I wrote, I just wanted your personal opinion on that so called third entity.
Besides, apart from Brent there isn't a single player on the camel team that has a Hydra background, okay. We're practise partners and obviously separate entities in all other regards. Can we please get over this?


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.
Ais Hellia
The Deliberate Forces
HYDRA RELOADED
#59 - 2015-08-24 18:18:34 UTC
Serena Greyskull wrote:

so you're telling me that all those exact same bans.


Are you dyslexic IRL and can't read 2 rows of text on null-sec?

Bans
Orthrus(2)Cerberus(2)Barghest(1)Typhoon Fleet Issue(1)Widow(1)Blackbird(1)

Bans
Loki(2)Tengu(2)Widow(1)Oneiros(1)Guardian(1)Blackbird(1)

Serena Greyskull
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#60 - 2015-08-24 18:49:15 UTC
Ais Hellia wrote:
Serena Greyskull wrote:

so you're telling me that all those exact same bans.


Are you dyslexic IRL and can't read 2 rows of text on null-sec?

Bans
Orthrus(2)Cerberus(2)Barghest(1)Typhoon Fleet Issue(1)Widow(1)Blackbird(1)

Bans
Loki(2)Tengu(2)Widow(1)Oneiros(1)Guardian(1)Blackbird(1)



lol.

thanks for not denying you running the exact same setup.