| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Baitrix
Deep Core Mining Inc.
    |
Posted - 2009.06.19 09:46:00 -
[1]
I got my money on whoever fields only t3 cruisers...
oh, why not up the buyin to 10bil while we are at it? |
temponita
|
Posted - 2009.06.23 01:04:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Baitrix
I got my money on whoever fields only t3 cruisers...
oh, why not up the buyin to 10bil while we are at it?
If only they had T3 BS... at least we could justify the cost somehow.
As it stands, a T3 cruiser is near impossible to justify.
|
Spike 68
Placid Defense Force
|
Posted - 2009.06.25 17:53:00 -
[3]
Originally by: temponita
As it stands, a T3 cruiser is near impossible to justify.
This, atm T3 ships are 1.5 bil bastard stepchild HACs.
 |
Seldarine
Minmatar
Culture Breach
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 01:29:00 -
[4]
in the last tournament t2 rigs were initially allowed, then removed due to the isk barrier.
T3 ships are included in this tournament at 15 points?
pretty poorly thought out in my opinion.
______________________________
Seldarine
 |
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 02:01:00 -
[5]
on monday they deploy the patch that should lower t3 prices. so there is hope.
also marauders in the last tournament had a pretty nice price tag. and it got even worse atm.
|
Kyoko Sakoda
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 22:57:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Seldarine
in the last tournament t2 rigs were initially allowed, then removed due to the isk barrier.
T3 ships are included in this tournament at 15 points?
pretty poorly thought out in my opinion.
To encourage their use, it seems. I highly doubt it'll be that way next tournament. |
Rajere
No Trademark
|
Posted - 2009.06.30 05:29:00 -
[7]
Approx Isk cost to field a team for:
Alliance Tournament IV: Ships/fittings: ~1-2bil, implants: 1.5bil+, the major isk sink was pirate implant sets (lg or hg) as needed for each pilot that participated. ~approx 3-3.5bil at the low end (lg implants, partial sets, etc), the high end was *much* higher.
Alliance Tournament V: Ships/fittings/hardwirings: 2-3bil, and that was it, no hidden surprise costs. Most equitable/balanced tourney as far as cost is concerned imho, large wealthy alliances had no inherent advantage over smaller, less wealthy teams.
Alliance Tournament VI: Ships/fittings/hardwirings/rigs: 10-15 bil, drastic changes in the format/tournament dynamics results more/bigger/more expensive ships to fill out your teams 100 points, team dps drastically increased while RR/tanking is banned, so each team you field is not only more expensive, you'll also lose more ships even in your "winning" fights. To top it off, Rigs are allowed, adding further costs to every ship you field, many of which you'll lose due to the new tournament format.
estimation for Alliance Tournament VII: Entry Fee (non-refundable) 2bil, Ships/fittings/hardwirings/rigs: 15-25bil, partially due to increased costs of T2, but mostly depending on how T3 shakes out cost wise. Basically it's the same format as ATVI, you pretty much have to write-off the cost of any ship you field as lost, only they've added what's at this time very expensive T3 ships at such a low point cost, which will definitely encourage many to build setups featuring/focusing on T3. total cost 17-27 bil isk.
The opinions expressed in my posts do represent my corp
--------------------------
NOTR
|
QwaarJet
Gallente
hirr
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.06.30 13:57:00 -
[8]
I still seriously doubt the effectiveness of T3 ships in tournament conditions. I don't think we'll say as many as some think.
|
Rajere
No Trademark
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 00:37:00 -
[9]
eh who knows. If T3 are popular this tournament then it could raise the overall cost to compete. If not, then this tournament shouldn't cost much more than last tournament, other than the addition of the 2 bil entry fee.
The bigger point I was trying to make was in response to the OP complaining that T3 would make this tournament too expensive. I was trying to point out that the tournament was already too expensive, with or without T3. ie T3 has the potential to increase costs by about 30% over AT VI, which while significant, somewhat pales in comparison to AT VI's 500% increase in cost over AT V.
That was all due to the rules changes after AT V to address concerns over turtle tanking. Which of course in typical CCP fashion, they went totally overboard with the changes to address something which ultimately would have been very simple to fix.
Basically there were a few ways they could of went about fixing turtle tanking, and any one of them would have worked out ok.
After AT V people were saying they should raise the point cost of logistics, but that would only exacerbated the problem. The problem wasn't that logistics point costs were too low, the problem was that logistics point costs were too high. Or rather, the points you had left to spend after 2xlogistics made it difficult (but certainly not impossible) to field a team with enough DPS/Ewar/neuting/etc to counter the repping ability of dual logistics. This was especially true if you went for raw DPS with your leftover points, because the DPS you could field was pretty much right at the threshhold of the DPS that dual logistics could rep, which is why 2 dual logistic teams facing off resulted in a bunch of "boring" matches.
One option was to just reduce the point costs of ships across the board, to enable teams to field more; more dps/ecm/neuting/etc, in order to counter perma-tanking. This would have work well combined it with this tournaments "two ship" rule.
And of course Another knee-jerk reaction option, was simply to ban logistics Modules.
Either one of those things would have eliminated "boring" turtle tanking matches.
So of course CCP decided to do both.
Let's drastically increase the DPS each team has available while also increasing the average number and strength of ships a team fields. While banning RR. Grats, that also effectively banned Ewar/jamming as an option as well, which was made apparent during AT VI.
But hey, some people seem to think a single logistics will make ECM viable again this tourney.
In AT V, going up against a "High DPS gank setup" meant you were facing something like triple megathrons and some random filler, which was manageable for say a rook to pull off np. This tourney, facing a "High DPS gank setup" can mean you're looking at 5x Armageddons and 5x Thrashers, All 5 geddons you must successfully jam immediately, since you begin the match within scorch range, otherwise the ones which are not successfully jammed will simply Alpha strike you. Of course once you do that you then need to start worrying about the 5x Thrashers closing in on you and their 8k damage per volley. Yeah ECM will be fine this time around.
Hopefully by AT VIII they'll have realized their "fix" for turtle tanking was supposed to have been an either/or choice, and doing both was overkill that broke more than just tanking. With the amount/strength of ships you can field based on current point costs, even after you deduct the points for 2x logistics, perma-tanking an opposing team is already impossible. The restriction on logistics ships limits our ability to field ships other than the gank/tank variety.
The opinions expressed in my posts do represent my corp
--------------------------
NOTR
|
motomysz
No Limit Productions
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 03:09:00 -
[10]
I'm just curious why a HAC and a t3 cruiser cost the same amount of points to field. I could care less about isk... but why would ANYONE field a HAC when they can get way more bang for their proverbial "buck" (meaning team points) out of a t3 cruiser?
|
|
Righteous Gun
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 16:09:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Righteous Gun on 02/07/2009 16:09:37
cool beans. team of all 400k ehp proteus.
thats never gonna be boring ...
|
Cheekything
Gallente
Fallen Angel's
Blade.
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 18:34:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Cheekything on 02/07/2009 18:35:42
Tech 3 ships aren't great it's like the people who bet the ishtar setups would win last year.... *whine whine whine*.
Also tech 3 ships if you didn't notice the lastest patch are about to drop in price making all the people who spent billions on them feel slight stupid :).
Lastly I bet the next thread will be "ZOMFG Falcon, Rook, Blackbird and nightmares with a basilisk are too 1337".
|
Trellish
The Perfect Storm
Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 15:17:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Cheekything
Edited by: Cheekything on 02/07/2009 18:35:42
Tech 3 ships aren't great it's like the people who bet the ishtar setups would win last year.... *whine whine whine*.
Also tech 3 ships if you didn't notice the lastest patch are about to drop in price making all the people who spent billions on them feel slight stupid :).
Lastly I bet the next thread will be "ZOMFG Falcon, Rook, Blackbird and nightmares with a basilisk are too 1337".
nah... It's like the I-phone. People paid a premium to get one during the initial release period compared to those who purchased after it was out for a while. There's no cause for regret... most of them probably knew and expected the price to go down compared to the initial release prices.... just like happens with most newly released items.
I'm quite keen to see how t3 ships are used in the tourney, though I grant the points might be just a little off for them.
|
Ace Secunda
Aperture Harmonics
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 16:50:00 -
[14]
I paid 1.2 bil for my Loki and it was worth every penny for all the 'nice ship' comments when flying around low and null sec ha ha :D
It is a better ship than a vaga or a sleipnir the way I have it setup though and can use combat probes for the guys who hide. Also people are forgetting the extreme overloading that can be done, I can run my MWD for 7+ cycles before I have to shut down and repair a few mods offering nearly 1k m/s faster speeds and thats not including the huge resists from overloading the invulnerability field. If that is taken advantage of in the tournament it will be very interesting.
'If I can't blow it up It don't exsist'
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |