These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Special edition ships in tournaments

First post
Author
SoulLess Zealot
Khaedra's Law
#1 - 2016-07-26 18:56:48 UTC
The previous topic was locked so i decided to make a new one. I would like to state up front im not looking for heads to roll i just want to have a serious conversation on the matter as this decision affects more than the tournaments.

Matter at hand-

This desicion warrented or not affects more than the tournaments. It also affects percived values of the ships. Not the arbitrary one ccp has placed on them. Other than the random guy who may actually fly the ship on tq , or a rich collector ;who would want to buy them now? Striking a hard cap on their involvement with the tournament also devalues them in my opinion not greatly but enough. Maybe thats part of the reason for the "armour etana" as they would still be some of the most coveted. Paying billions of isk for a one off moracha seem not worth it to me...

Secondly at ships arent unbeatable. They do give advantage but isnt the price of that risking it in the first place. I think maybe a limit of 2 at the least. Or better yet just ban them untill the final 8 matches (16 teams left).
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#2 - 2016-07-26 19:32:45 UTC
Personally, I think they should cost 2 pts more per hull. If CCP intents to continue to precedent of having a certain pirate faction's ships 2 pts less, this kind of makes sense.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

SoulLess Zealot
Khaedra's Law
#3 - 2016-07-26 19:38:52 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
Personally, I think they should cost 2 pts more per hull. If CCP intents to continue to precedent of having a certain pirate faction's ships 2 pts less, this kind of makes sense.



I support this train of thought. I would be more open to this than a hard cap and i think there should be more of an open discussion here between seasoned tournament players(i am not including myself in this statement)
Venix
An Eye For An Eye
Phoebe Freeport Republic
#4 - 2016-07-26 19:56:47 UTC
I think that the largest impact comes from the banning portion of the tournament. If a less experienced alliance has to spend bans on prize ships, then they have very little control of what their opponent brings. With only 1 ship of that type allowed on the field it is unlikely that an alliance would choose to ban them (other than the etana of course).

Granted I do not have a position on it right now as the information is fresh. I just wanted to offer up a potential difference.
SoulLess Zealot
Khaedra's Law
#5 - 2016-07-27 08:59:10 UTC  |  Edited by: SoulLess Zealot
Well i have put my 1 cent in already but here is my second. Do we really expect to see a large shake up in the top 4 at the conclusion of this at if we banned at ships out right?

...because i dont think we will. Or at least the third and fourth spots will be up for grabs.

: not trying to pick on anyone.
Bei ArtJay
Better Off Red
Unspoken Alliance.
#6 - 2016-07-27 09:29:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Bei ArtJay
Suileman from the Tuskers posted a setup on Tweetfleet yesterday that I think demonstrates the need for this rule.

Scorpion Navy Issue
Claymore
Etana
Fiend
Fiend
Svipul
Svipul
Cambion
Cambion
Hawk

In the hands of equally skilled pilots the above setup in my view would completely dominate the below, T2 setup.

Scorpion Navy Issue
Claymore
Basilisk
Onyx
Onyx
Svipul
Svipul
Harpy
Harpy
Hawk

A clear demonstration of 'be rich to win' that is against the competitive spirit of any PVP competition I feel (although arguably AT is as much a competition of who is the most crafty and connected as who can PVP and thoerycraft well which would be a good argument for keeping multiples in).

If you apply the new rule to the second setup and switched out for a Etana or Fiend it gives the AT ship team a certain advantage and an opportunity for a rare ship to shine, whilst still giving the opposing equally skilled team the opportunity to out-fly and beat them.

I think something interesting might happen with the value actually. Teams that have an over supply might be more inclined to sell them, and teams that are wealthy that do not have a known stash (NCdot possibly for example) might feel that having one in every match is affordable, and thereby build up a variety of their own to try and gain a small advantage (100bil being possibly worth paying per match, rather than the trillion isk needed to field some PL setups).
Bei ArtJay
Better Off Red
Unspoken Alliance.
#7 - 2016-07-27 09:46:29 UTC
Also one further thought -

I think we will see the number of matches with AT ships fielded go up with this rule, which is cool, since the teams that have the pilots who own them and want to use them will be queing up to use them, with the death of Hydramel there should be more of a distribution of these ships now, so hopefully we get to see them on weekend one, two and three and exploding everywhere when their team mates screw up and the matches snowball against them Big smile
SoulLess Zealot
Khaedra's Law
#8 - 2016-07-27 10:01:29 UTC
Bei. I get your point. Not that we have ever seen that many at ships feilded at once .. But i guess it could happen.

On that matter fine if thats the way everyone wants to go so be it ill watch from the stands for now.

Seconly yes as i stated certain ships will be useful in situations but i think a majority of ships wont be. I dont agree with you there and that being my view if i had a ton of the wanted ones why sell them ..
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#9 - 2016-07-27 14:26:30 UTC
Obviously the role of unique ships in the AT has been a fairly controversial topic for a few years, and I think people have such different views partly because there's a couple different sets of competing goals involved in EVE tournaments. How you find yourself along each spectrum matters a lot here.

Firstly, the spectrum between normal esport patterns and the EVE sandbox.
The extreme version of normal esports would be running a tournament on a test server with free items, max skilled characters and no spying or "metagaming".
The extreme EVE sandbox side is essentially just normal EVE pvp, without limits on movement, ship types or player numbers.
Exactly where the AT should fall on this spectrum is a question we've been working through for years. It ties heavily into questions of how much we should restrict ISK spending in the tournament. There are plenty of advocates of both sides and some tournaments (such as EVE_NT Collides) are further towards the "normal esports" side of the spectrum since they take place on SISI.
The "pure esports" perspective on unique ships tends to be that they need to be restricted so that pure pvp skill can shine vs ingame wealth and alliance assets. The "EVE sandbox" perspective tends to be that unique ships represent a way for entire alliances to invest in their teams and that the economic shockwaves of expensive ships exploding creates gameplay value.

Secondly, the spectrum between the AT as a game system and the AT as a spectator event.
This one can be a bit hard to see sometimes since AT pilots themselves tend to fall on the "game system" side. Concerns about making a quality spectator event are the reason we tend to intentionally increase point values of very tanky ships. From a pure game system perspective it would be nice to get extra variety by lowering the point cost of ships like marauders, but we get spectator event value from encouraging faster-pace fights.
From a game system perspective it's easier to argue for banning or heavy restrictions for unique ships. They impact the results of matches somewhat by sitting outside the normal power/point curve.
From a spectator event perspective on the other hand, unique ships are pretty amazing. They make exciting viewing and memorable matches for the people at home. They are good focus point for hype from commentators and discussion of tactics. They provide a touchstone connecting each tournament with the history of the EVE universe.


For this tournament, we have decided to provide some extra restriction for unique ships to try and minimize the issues while preserving as much of their value to the event as possible.

Increasing the point values of unique ships was considered, but at the end of the day we think that increasing the point values would do more to reduce the number of matches that contain unique ships than restricting numbers. It's a bit subjective, but I believe that a match with X unique ships isn't X times as exciting as a match with one unique ship. Since these multi-unique setups are both hitting diminishing returns in excitement and provide the most obvious cases of overpowered impact, we decided to go with the "one per setup" rule. We hope that with this rule we'll continue to see unique ships brought out on the stream while keeping cheaper setups competitive.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie