| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
mazzilliu
    |
Posted - 2009.09.21 05:48:00 -
[1]
This weekend was the perfect(in my unbiased opinion) end to a great alliance tournament. But there were a few things that could be done better. So let's figure out what those things are in this thread.
-------------
the biggest issue for me was the visuals. Most of the time what you saw on the screen was pretty ships shooting each other. important information like where they were going and who they were shooting was not always very clearly conveyed. Due to the nature of trying to communicate something 3d on a 2d format, it's going to be difficult regardless of whatever technique you use to try to show this information.
One improvement I can think of is giving the commentators the ability to draw on the screen, much like they do in american football to show what's going on. I remember a few moments in the tournament that were absolutely golden but never mentioned in the commentary, and probably not apparent to people unless it was highlighted. For example when the camera was centering around some pretty ship shooting another pretty ship, a blue square in the background was approaching a wreck. Or when my alliance's ****train minmatar fleet was charging the opponent in the semifinals, you could see one ship getting in their way and visibly getting shoved out.
My point is, the commentators should be commenting more on what we the viewers are actually seeing. not just on the damage bars and what ships are generally used for doing what. or saying that this or that team are looting wrecks or something, when we can't see it. There is little value in a visual stream when the visuals are meaningless.
--------------------
team leaders should be given the option to concede the match and keep their remaining ships. There isn't really any good purpose for dragging out matches longer then they need to and right now, players have no incentive not to. I don't think it will impact the fairness of the tournament but it will increase the production value.
--------------------
CCP need to get advertisers onboard the next time around. you already have a ton of people watching, and they are going to tolerate seeing commercials instead of an animation of a red flag. i know the tourney costs you a lot of money, and putting dish soap advertisements or something on isn't going to drive us away. it will definitely increase the odds of there being another tourney the next year too.
---------------------------
There needs to be some thing to encourage people to stop using the same general setup over and over again. usually the setups were 2 battleships, 1-3 battlecruisers, a logistics, maybe a couple recons or t3 cruiser, and maybe small ships to fill out 10 slots. i dont know if it was a lack of imagination or a fear of taking risks, but things honestly didnt heat up until the very last matches.
maybe we should ban logistics ships and t3 cruisers with logi setups, tracking disruptors, and jamming.
----------------------------
You guys should show action replays of exciting moments of the match
and you guys should also release the studio commentary along with the matches on youtube. people want to hear what they say about their alliance in the studio between matches if they missed it. i know i would.
MAZZILLIU 2009. CHANGE I CAN IMPOSE ON YOU. |
Jordan Musgrat
H A V O C
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 06:41:00 -
[2]
As far as the rules go, they were much better than last year and I almost wish they stay the same. The 1 glaring ship that's the most used is the logistics ship. It's really quite pivotal, and can skew what should be very close matches pretty badly when both sides get down to roughly the same amount of ships. But I'm not sure how to counter this, and I think that I'd just leave it in, and chalk it up as it exemplifying one of the 2 basic things in pvp, 1 of which is doing dps, and the other, tanking that dps. It should be mentioned that there were some extremely good setups without any logistics, whether or not they were fielded.
As far as points go, T3 need to be 1 or 2 points more, BS need to be cheaper (they were so horrible in most cases, this time around), although faction BS may need to stay high, with the massive buffs they're getting. But having T1 BS/T3 at 17 points would make for some really hard choices, as well as moving cruisers to 9 points, and bombers maybe to 7-8, because the more you encourage the use of BS, the more valuable a bomber will be.
All in all, I think nobody really got a monopoly on setups this year. Even PL's setup is easily countered; the speed/gank team is rather resilient to most things, including bombers/damps, and tbh that's fine. To really be able to counter that, you should have to go to really specialized setups, and that's what we saw.
So CCP Claw should prolly just adjust points for a few ships to change things up a bit, and keep the basic rules the same, and that should provide a very entertaining tourney for next year. Maybe even allow boosters? That would be very, very interesting, though there are some sick combinations of boosters, then again I guess most of those revolve around BS
-----------
Primary is family values, secondary is 0.0... |
Vuk Lau
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 07:44:00 -
[3]
System for applying for tournament was utterly ******ed.
 |
DaDutchDude
Minmatar
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 08:09:00 -
[4]
I think a couple of good ideas were discussed by the commentators:
* more granularity in points: it would be useful to make smaller distinctions between ship classes, such as the points for T1 cruisers and tier 1 battle cruisers
* more (but still limited) number of same ships to be flown: I think raising the number of ships allowed to 3 or perhaps 4 per ship type would allow more 'specialist' setups to be created, creating more diversity in successful tactics, while still not making the entire team look the same
Personally I also dislike the use of ECM in the tournament because of the chance base factor. Some teams got a number of lucky jams and went through while others didn't and failcascaded. Perhaps the randomness of it is fun to some, but I think it makes judging pilot and FC skill very difficult. Something that would make the ECM ships and modules less pervasive in the tournament would be much appreciated (perhaps by buffing other racial ewar?).
_____________________________________
Agony Unleashed (home of PVP University)
|
JZIM
Caldari
Einherjar Rising
Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 08:30:00 -
[5]
Edited by: JZIM on 21/09/2009 08:31:53
Originally by: mazzilliu
maybe we should ban logistics ships and t3 cruisers with logi setups, tracking disruptors, and jamming.
These are part of TQ PVP. Strongly disagree with this.
Allowing 3x ship hulls to open up more varied setups (eg drone setups) would be nice, along with fixing the hac and cruiser points cost to something more reasonable.
|
Muad' Dib
Beyond Divinity Inc
Beyond Virginity
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 09:29:00 -
[6]
Yes, it was the best alliance tournament so far, but some things could use improvement.
I'd like to see more alliances in the tournament, and maybe some way to differentiate or prohibit the sale of slots; just because you own space that is safer than Motsu or 1.0 newbie starter system doesn't mean that you should get automatically in.
Cruiser point cost must also get ajusted.
From the commentators pov, i'd like to see more profesionalism, this tournament was a big step up in that aspect because of the presence of Kil2. Let's be frank about this, you don't want as a commentator an alliance grunt who only flies in fleets, because he doesn't know all of the ships classes, effects, or fits ... nor do you want someone who flies only 1 race.
There should be a ban on personal opinions for commentators, i don't think i need to give examples, there has been enough typing about it.
I am all for for the option to concede the match.
There needs to be better advertisement. I liked how fast the vids from the fights ended up on YouTube in HD. so mad props to CCP for that.
Whatever you do mazzilliu, you will never be able to stop ppl from using the FOTM. So whatever the general all purpose setup for the next tournament will be, that is what will be FOTM. I think this tournament end showed how FOTM played less of a crucial role. Most of the teams switched and adjusted setups in the last few matches.
Compared to the last year there were more nail-biting fights too. :)
Under no circumstance ban logistics, but the rule of having only 1 ship with RR was a very nice ideea. :)
---
I smack just for myself.
* Your signature file is to large. Please note: we do not allow signature files larger than 24000 bytes - Fallout |
Tyrrax Thorrk
Amarr
Guiding Hand Social Club
Dystopia Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 09:31:00 -
[7]
i was pretty happy with the rules, just points costs need to be adjusted - bombers, cruisers, faction cruisers, hacs etc
|
Blazde
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 09:42:00 -
[8]
Originally by: mazzilliu
the biggest issue for me was the visuals.
I end up saying this after every tourney but they could really do some simple things to increase the information viewers get (particularly now we have the HD stream and the text is readable).
- EW icons by each target bracket showing which ships are successfully jammed / dampened / TDed / webed / scrambled / nosed / neuted
- Velocities displayed & some simple measurment of position (eg. distance from centre marker)
- Leave target brackets of dead ships on screen for a bit so we can see what it was that just died suddenly
- Maybe other icons like weapons / drones / remote reps / transporters / energy xfers if it can be done without it looking too cluttered
- Match timer, and ship point counts destroyed so far
- Full alliance name given once on each side, then get rid of the tickers by each ship
The red & blue bars were a great addition this time but for many matches they weren't on.
This stuff would help not only viewers but especially the commentators. It was much better this time but in past tourneys it got really frustrating when they'd wonder outloud why a team had given up trying to do any damage to the other, or had bad discipline cos it wasn't focusing fire, when it was obvious they were all jammed or damped. I don't blame the commentators, they gotta talk constantly so they can't be expected to think too hard at the same time  They need visual cues to what's going on, and the EW icons plus ranges etc.. would help them pick camera targets/angles better too (several of them mentioned that it was hard to get good spatial information in tournament mode UI).
_
 |
Muad' Dib
Gallente
Beyond Divinity Inc
Beyond Virginity
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 09:45:00 -
[9]
In a way alliance tournament slots - 64 so far, can be compared to a rare commodity. More and more ppl join the game, more and more alliances are made, the alliance today is something a solo Motsu lvl 4 mission runner can have personally while 2yrs ago the appearance of a new alliance was almost immediately noticed.
One alternative to all of this is to increase the cost of getting in, which is something that i think they tried this year, but still, so many alliances joined that it was still close to 50:50 to get in. Just increasing the cost next year won't solve the problem, because it will just increase the problem that is the making of alt alliances and applying with all of them to get in.
The only viable alternative to this is to increase the entry slots to 128, add another week to the tournament and get a few extra commentators for the coverage - off-c this might also mean that the quality of commentators might go down.
---
I smack just for myself.
* Your signature file is to large. Please note: we do not allow signature files larger than 24000 bytes - Fallout |
Raukho
Evoke.
Ev0ke
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 09:56:00 -
[10]
Certain ships are used almost as by default:
T3 cruisers (Tengu)
Rook
Logistics (although the choice between a tank or a rep logistics makes it not so bad).
This could be lack of creativity but also a to low point cost especially for the T3 cruisers this seems to be the case.
BS are to expensive especially T3 active tank but this could be a general pvp balance issue between active and passive tank (Maelstrom).
Get rid of the commentators they are awful hardly any relevant comment is coming from them.
Also show more shots where we can see the relative positions of the ships to each other. I know that hurricanes are awesome.
|
|
Brendana Fortescue
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 10:06:00 -
[11]
The informations were too repetitive like Brooke Shields colgate commercial on youtube.
Soveregnity system - same informations several times per day both saturday and sunday.
Same old crap videos.
The last videos were again same stuff that was already told before.
The worst part its same stuff from devblogs.
I dont blame the eve -tv team couse its not their fault . im blaming the people who were in charge to approve the content couse they should approve more variations and dont restrict the eve tv team that much. The result is it was good team with crappy content. |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 10:10:00 -
[12]
Present:
The one logistics only rule made a lot of difference, they can be good but not more.
Ship hull limit also did a world of good, much more variety.
Future:
Spatial awareness for the viewers is non-existent as mentioned. Definitely something to look into.
Make a hard limit based on race/faction. As much as the all Minmatar, Amarr, Caldari teams can be fun to watch they decrease variety.
Cap it at 3 ships from any race and/or 3 faction ships.
|
QwaarJet
Gallente
hirr
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 15:02:00 -
[13]
TBH, there isn't much that needs to be changed about this tourney, but there is a few things.
- Find some way to get extra funding for the tourney so that we can ditch the radio coverage. This is 2009 and having to listen to the tourney via radio is not acceptable. Ads are fine, or even charge people to watch a stream during the qualifiers.
- The random entry system is total garbage. If there is no other alternative, then just go back to first come first served. It shows the team's dedication to entry if they apply really early, and any screwups that occur (like MM in tourney 6) are not CCP's fault. To add to that point, the way CCP Claw changed the entry rules with only days to go is not good. He failed to predict the mass withdrawals of alliances that gained entry and as a result had to create an emergency second reserve list. This is another reason to ditch the random system.
- Commentators need more tools to work with. Some suggested being able to draw on screen, I think that is a great idea.
- Points need adjusting. Not really T1 cruisers, as this tournament is not about throwaway ships, but maybe lower HAC points and increase T3 cost. I also think faction battleships need a points reduction.
- Ban faction ammo. Regardless of how much ISK your team has access too, faction ammo is a complete rip-off and often costs more than the ships themselves.
|
Mirax Wessiri
hirr
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 17:58:00 -
[14]
A couple of points from me:
- Maybe have a playback option for each match, in a similar fashion as GuildWars has implemented into their game. (Link)
- If that is totally not feasible, which I doubt, although it might divert CCP resources away from actually improving the game. How about having a small, stand alone tool, that will show the positions within the arena of each ship during the match? That must be some really basic 3D geometry information for each participant and there must be loads of "amateur" programmers who can make a good looking tool for something like this. Especially if there is some knowledge on what positions corresponds to what type of ship at what point in time etc. This tool could be used in a small corner of the EVE TV video's, so that it will show current fleet positions relative to each other.
- Something that might make it easier to grasp what's happening: have a structure close to the arena, so that people can use that as reference to the actual arena. The structure obviously should be outside of the arena walls though. Some people suggested the arena to be close to a planet, but I don't think that'll improve referentiality.
- And maybe a more fine-tuned point distribution list for ships. I.e. max of 1000, with BS being &180 points, instead of 18. (Shamelessly stolen from some other idea thread somewhere, can't recall where.)
All in all I did enjoy the tournament, and although I somehow agree with this being 2009 and EVE TV would probably be a good idea to have in both qualifier rounds, I did enjoy the radio commentary. Bear in mind though, that radio commentary is very different from TV commentary, and the two qualifier-weekends were done through radio, but with the knowledge that the matches would be shown on video too. Would be nice to have a proper radio-amateur with knowledge of EVE PVP be involved in the first two weekends and see how that worked out. |
RedSplat
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 18:18:00 -
[15]
Edited by: RedSplat on 21/09/2009 18:19:58
The commentating was sub par.
In some cases it was clear the individual didn't know what they were talking about.
EDIT: Is there a reason spectators cant be allowed on grid, but muted in local and with the ability to convo people blocked?
1000 immobile pods on a reinforced node isn't going to effect competitors in terms of lag, and pods marking the play boundary would look rather cool.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep.
I am always here.
Watching.
Waiting.
|
Intigo
Amarr
Rionnag Alba
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.09.22 01:19:00 -
[16]
Originally by: RedSplat
Edited by: RedSplat on 21/09/2009 18:19:58
The commentating was sub par.
In some cases it was clear the individual didn't know what they were talking about.
EDIT: Is there a reason spectators cant be allowed on grid, but muted in local and with the ability to convo people blocked?
1000 immobile pods on a reinforced node isn't going to effect competitors in terms of lag, and pods marking the play boundary would look rather cool.
There were 15k people viewing the stream. Don't be dumb.
___________________
HELLO! My name is Inigo Mont...oh f' it. |
Vrikshaka
Yawn Corp
|
Posted - 2009.09.24 00:03:00 -
[17]
T1 cruisers need to become a viable option again, denying a whole shipclass their role in the tournament makes for less variation and thus less entertaining fights.
|
OwlManAtt
Gallente
Yasashii Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2009.09.24 00:31:00 -
[18]
Edited by: OwlManAtt on 24/09/2009 00:31:18
* The process for getting a slot in the alliance tournament needs review.
* The qualifiers need video streams. I would not object to paying 2-5 USD for the video of all three weeks (any more and I'd just wait for the youtube videos). Even if I were paying, I would have no problem keeping the present format - two weeks of remote commentators and then the final week with the studio, on-site experts, and game designers visiting.
* I'm not sure what I think about the two hull types limit. Maybe restrict it to only certain ship classes? In a previous tournament, I loved seeing a team of 10 Thoraxes fight.
(formatting edit)
---
Owl |
aetherguy881
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 00:18:00 -
[19]
Edited by: aetherguy881 on 25/09/2009 00:18:02
Have a better steam for the finals... It was fine for maybe 20 min, then I couldn't watch it because they were 1 second bits of footage every 5+ seconds...
I think I've detected a time flux.
-------------------
Always remember this about EVE:
Life is cheap, or 15 bucks a month. |
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 00:34:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Vrikshaka
T1 cruisers need to become a viable option again, denying a whole shipclass their role in the tournament makes for less variation and thus less entertaining fights.
This, really. There was absolutely no point in fielding a t1 combat cruiser instead of a tier1 battlecruiser.
About the ECM ships, imo they should be limited in a similar way as logistics, i.e. only one ECM specialized ship, with the exception of ecm frigates being allowed to use two if you dont field a ecm cruiser etc.
|
|
Cheekything
Gallente
Fallen Angel's
Blade.
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 03:09:00 -
[21]
I say give each team 10 ship classes to use like in the olden days this may reduce imagination but seriously no more logi ship setups or mass medium sized dps ships.
Give the gladiators the weapons you want then let them fight with skill and tactics screw free will it's for entertainment and glory.
Also no implant, no best named only tech 1 or tech 2 keep it simple 
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 08:27:00 -
[22]
Not sure why this is in AH, but ok let's critique AT 7 here.
I am not a fan of reintroducing logistics ships, it has made some of the matches boring and long, but not terribly so like in the first few ATs. I think it is more of range being a bit overpowered in the AT as ranged ships gets their range handed to them on a silver platter while short range ships have to fight an uphill battle just to get within range.
They need better camera operators showing the interesting parts of the action (sometimes they are ok and sometimes way off) as well as better commentators. I know Verone/Veto is an AT brosef, but good god how did you let Ryas commentate, it was just awful. Give the commentators some energy drink or speed or something, because they sound so dull and bored when they should be excited at watching a cool battle and tell us all the details. Commentators also need some tools to know wtf is going on, it's off-putting to hear "experts" say I dunno what is going on or I think I know what is happening, but not sure. Great, you aren't sure what is going on, awesome intel Ryas. You realize you were talking about some random topic and missed the critical scimitar die and now you are confused what is going on, right Ryas?
I like this tournament, but it could be better. The entry process needs to be completely reworked, but the HD stream and HD youtube videos are completely win.
Supporting something, not sure what.
Originally by: CCP Whisper
So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup. Cry some more.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |