These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
WarFireV
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#81 - 2015-08-25 17:15:49 UTC
I mean almost every etana fielded in the AT has died. There have only been a few matches where the etana has made it out alive.
Kat Ayclism
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#82 - 2015-08-25 22:51:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Kat Ayclism
I'm sure Hydralords of the Camel, as non-colluding teams that haven't run the same setups under similar bans, will surely bring some AT ships to massacre each other with, rather than have some uneventful garbage comps where one team wins but they conveniently reveal nothing new. Everything is on the line, after all and they aren't simply A and B team. Roll
General Vachot
The Vendunari
End of Life
#83 - 2015-08-26 11:32:38 UTC
My 2 cents no to banning tournament ships that would be sad and take some wow from the AT. However yes to adjustment on their points value. Maybe a blanket +x points versus their relevant hull type to make it simple.

Not sure what value x needs to be but maybe they can start with +1 or +2
Alt ofanalt Spai
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#84 - 2015-08-29 18:19:58 UTC
Kat Ayclism wrote:
I'm sure Hydralords of the Camel, as non-colluding teams that haven't run the same setups under similar bans, will surely bring some AT ships to massacre each other with, rather than have some uneventful garbage comps where one team wins but they conveniently reveal nothing new. Everything is on the line, after all and they aren't simply A and B team. Roll



I honestly used to think PL was just blowing smoke. But after watching that fight I noticed something wierd. No DHB. He was the loudest voice on the forums here for Warlords about being fair. He also flew typhoons in both of their previous matches prior to this weekend. I'm sure I am grabbing at strings here but to me it seems that the only reason DHB wouldnt fly is because he knew they were gonna throw the match. Just seems really wierd.
DHB WildCat
Out of Fwocus
Fwodin's Call
#85 - 2015-08-29 18:29:48 UTC
Alt ofanalt Spai wrote:
Kat Ayclism wrote:
I'm sure Hydralords of the Camel, as non-colluding teams that haven't run the same setups under similar bans, will surely bring some AT ships to massacre each other with, rather than have some uneventful garbage comps where one team wins but they conveniently reveal nothing new. Everything is on the line, after all and they aren't simply A and B team. Roll



I honestly used to think PL was just blowing smoke. But after watching that fight I noticed something wierd. No DHB. He was the loudest voice on the forums here for Warlords about being fair. He also flew typhoons in both of their previous matches prior to this weekend. I'm sure I am grabbing at strings here but to me it seems that the only reason DHB wouldnt fly is because he knew they were gonna throw the match. Just seems really wierd.





ummmmmmmmm no
Mordirth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#86 - 2015-08-29 20:44:58 UTC
No AT ships brought during the Camel v warlord matches, automatic AT ships against every else it seems.
Mordirth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#87 - 2015-08-29 20:57:50 UTC
Apothne "For a team not being able to bring AT ships they did the best they could."

Sums up the case against AT ships.
Mordirth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#88 - 2015-08-30 15:35:22 UTC
Cheesur "We know that Warlords can just put down a bunch of AT ships and get an easy 2-0"

Because AT ships aren't broken in the AT. So stupid how can they keep this up if this doesn't change there is no point watching or playing in the AT next year. Just give Warlords and Camel more ships why bother with this nonsense?
Mordirth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#89 - 2015-08-30 15:55:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Mordirth
Can't throw money against it and it will work 100% yes you are correct chessur. But the point is that it gives such a huge advantage to put in AT ships and that these ships are not possible for every team to have, literally not possible no matter what you say.

You admit in your discussion in the stream that it is about money not about skill or effort. And this is the problem, CPP said they don't want it to be about input of money but currently it is.
Mordirth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#90 - 2015-08-30 15:57:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Mordirth
Just get 10 players to farm up the money! Maybe they spend the time farming money to buy ships to play the game with and to get better at the game not to buy AT ships?

Edit: I would like to know how much money the teams that brought AT ships had to farm up to get them, not simply have them from winning previous games. Or trading AT ships to get the ships they desired, but actually specifically farm up money for the AT ships.
Jinche
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#91 - 2015-08-30 16:40:04 UTC
https://www.themittani.com/features/year-life-pandemic-legions-wallet

According to that article, PL spent 800B on the 10th alliance tournament. So, I guess about that
Mordirth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#92 - 2015-08-30 16:57:20 UTC
Jinche wrote:
https://www.themittani.com/features/year-life-pandemic-legions-wallet

According to that article, PL spent 800B on the 10th alliance tournament. So, I guess about that



Just because you use a ship or lose a ship that costs alot doesn't mean you payed the cost of the ship, if you won it you didn't. If you traded it you really didn't also. The active act of farming the money specifily to buy the ship is what i want to know.
Alekto Descendant
ElitistOps
Deepwater Hooligans
#93 - 2015-08-30 17:04:38 UTC
Mordirth wrote:
Jinche wrote:
https://www.themittani.com/features/year-life-pandemic-legions-wallet

According to that article, PL spent 800B on the 10th alliance tournament. So, I guess about that



Just because you use a ship or lose a ship that costs alot doesn't mean you payed the cost of the ship, if you won it you didn't. If you traded it you really didn't also. The active act of farming the money specifily to buy the ship is what i want to know.


that doesn't happen the way you think it does. The Teams that have AT ships make enough money from passive income as an alliance to be able to afford it, and just consider the tournament into their alliance budget, much like we do. We simply place our bets that if we spend 800B on the tourney, and have a good shot at winning, our alliance makes 2T, so its a no brainier for us to spend the money. Plus, if the ships we buy don't die, we can always sell them latter, the value of AT ships only goes up (13B Adrestias are no longer a thing). I guess some team somewhere maybe had players trying to rat up enough for Cambion, but in reality, I doubt it... The teams that feel they need an AT ship are already pretty wealthy.
Mordirth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#94 - 2015-08-30 17:31:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Mordirth
Alekto Descendant wrote:
Mordirth wrote:
Jinche wrote:
https://www.themittani.com/features/year-life-pandemic-legions-wallet

According to that article, PL spent 800B on the 10th alliance tournament. So, I guess about that



Just because you use a ship or lose a ship that costs alot doesn't mean you payed the cost of the ship, if you won it you didn't. If you traded it you really didn't also. The active act of farming the money specifily to buy the ship is what i want to know.


that doesn't happen the way you think it does. The Teams that have AT ships make enough money from passive income as an alliance to be able to afford it, and just consider the tournament into their alliance budget, much like we do. We simply place our bets that if we spend 800B on the tourney, and have a good shot at winning, our alliance makes 2T, so its a no brainier for us to spend the money. Plus, if the ships we buy don't die, we can always sell them latter, the value of AT ships only goes up (13B Adrestias are no longer a thing). I guess some team somewhere maybe had players trying to rat up enough for Cambion, but in reality, I doubt it... The teams that feel they need an AT ship are already pretty wealthy.



I get what you saying but my post was in response to cheesur saying "Just go farm up the money!" not that i actually believe it happens that way. I was just trying to show the ridiculousness of that statement. I fully understand how much money a big alliance makes and thats the problem with AT ships in the tourney. Its a money based competition as it is it is not a skill based. This is not saying you teams are not skilled you are, but if you bring an AT ship to the game it totally imbalances the game and at a certain point doesn't matter how skilled you are this is why apothne said "Did they best they could without AT ships".

The best games of this weekend were games with no AT ships, espcailly from a viewers stand point. That match of exodus v nulli? dood a nail biter. AT ships ruin this competition as they are and im tired of people espcially commentators whos teams benefit from it defending it. The reason they are on there right now comes down to "OOO blingy explooooosions" like some fool from the borderlands franchise, rather than "Hey lets makes this competition as balanced and fair and fun to watch as possible"

To sum up this weekend of the AT so far "Hey i brought an AT ship, you didn't :D" except in the case of camel v warlords where no AT ships were brought which baffles me since they both brought them against teams they viewed as threats, guess they don't view each other as threats.