I wanted to compile a comprehensive list of all historical tournament videos for EVE, initially to research comp evolution and to better understand meta trends and get intel on teams from past years for my tournament theory building.
I share with you today the collection of all tournament links I have currently tracked down for my own research and now for your research purposes and enjoyment. I hope you all find many of the historical vods here to bring back great memories or inspire you to push forward with your tournament hopes and plans.
This is going to be a super short post today and much more of an update on the overall structure of the blog. For this week, and going forward, I will be pushing updates to the sample fittings pages for all legal ships in a given tournament and keep them as updated as possible with legal and general baseline fits as possible for any active tournament.
I will also be working on similar page architecture for general archetype comps to give teams baseline example comps that they can use in their practicing and testing.
Always happy to listen to any and all feedback and maybe at some point I can work on adding user submitted comps and fits to the overall structure of the pages.
Having discussed the overall meta look from this past AT, let’s dive into some of the similarities and differences within each archetype and understand why specific ships and fits were chosen and how these choices ultimately led to success or failure in the given matchup.
What can we determine from the differences in the comps and the fits?
First, let’s look at comp selection. Both teams chose a Vulture, Ferox Navy Issue, Phantasm, Osprey, Double Navy Exequror, and Jackdaw. THL added Brutix Navy Issue, Ferox and Moa, while Goons ran with Harbinger Navy Issue, Myrmidon Navy Issue, and Skybreaker. The prior has better damage projection and more shield buffer, while the latter ran with more damage type split and a frigate that goes relatively unused.
We can also compare the two FNI fits and see that THL opted for buffer on a ship with an active rep bonus while Goons made use of the rep bonus. Additionally, THL was running cap transfers on their ENIs to help enable their logistics which is notoriously cap hungry and allow their other cap intensive shield gunships to function. The Goon ENIs had energy nos which enabled themselves to some degree but only if they were close to their target in the most fragile ship in the comp.
Regretfully since we can’t see the fit for either of the Vultures it’s difficult to determine exact link layout, but it’s safe to assume both teams had sensor optimization but THL favored running the heavily bonuses shield links for their Vulture vs. some info/shield split for Goons. They would then both be able to handle most control setups and still maintain range for both guns and targeting.
Taken together the THL comp is more balanced and team focused while the Goon comp is individual ship focused. In these cases, once a few ships start to fall the Goon comp fractures faster. Of note the Osprey is also more difficult to cover and protect and doesn’t have the benefit of potential incoming capacitor.
Heavy Armor Control
Boundary Experts vs Dracarys.
In this matchup we see a vaunted shield flag Vindicator Minmatar rush into Boundary Experts version of bwar with flag Barghest.
As the match unfolds, the Vindicator and both Sleipnirs get hard controlled with tracking disruption from the Sentinels and scrams from the Barghest and Confessor with ecm being spread cleanly across the entirety of the Dracarys rush. In particular, the Dracarys rush has no functional way to handle the Sentinels and Keres which completely neuter their core damage and no way to break the screening even with their massive attack bar. The Svipuls were entirely useless and easy pickings for the flag RHML Barghest and the remainder of the comp was unable to get within range to effectively apply damage.
This was a good example where bwar functioned as intended and was able to control the rush accordingly and was never really pressured by the level of damage due to some of the comp choices on Dracarys’ part and some of the piloting and primary decisions as well.
In another example, let’s look at how gunboat fared into heavy armor control and why we saw much less of it in the final weekend.
Barcode vs Fraternity –
This matchup on the surface looked pretty bad for Barcode and they definitely struggled into a gunboat comp running their heavy control bwar style comp. However, when we dig in further to the comps themselves it becomes much more interesting and perhaps Barcode had planned the matchup to be favorable but hit some bad RNG.
When we look at the specific ewar that was being run the jams were heavily skewed for Gallente and Amarr and the disruption skewed again almost entirely to tracking disruption instead of guidance disruptors. From this view, it would appear to have been a solidly built anti gunboat comp.
So why did it fall to the gunboat comp? At 1:10 into the match, Fraternity gets an amazing jump on the backline dodging the Barghest scrams and Loki webs as well as pulling range from the Tengu jams and pulling the links away from the backline. They’re able to very quickly primary and bring down the Blackbird, Oneiros and Tengu and in relieving the jam pressure and mitigating all tracking disruption issues by closing range instantly, they’re able to mop up the enemy comp nearly instantly.
We saw that this method of handing big armor cores with gunboat worked on several occasions when the gunboat comp would otherwise struggle. The ability to be mobile and apply damage at a variety of ranges in a variety of settings made the comp exceptionally strong and was one of the reasons the heavy armor control comp brought by Barcode failed to hold up in this match.
Review
Taking the variations above into account, it’s easier to see how different comp selections and variations play a major role in their overall performance during a match. The more experienced teams were definitely showing refined variations of these comps that some of the newer teams were struggling to build as accurately, allowing them to handle a wider array of matchups and fights. That said, even teams like Barcode had some execution challenges they couldn’t answer in a given matchup as shown with their match against Fraternity, and offer learning lessons for potential updates and optimizations that could be made in the future.
As I was putting together an comparative analysis on the different comp, ship, and fit selections from teams this tournament, it occurred to me that I should at least establish a general understanding about how one would go about creating a comp. On the surface it’s pretty easy, take some ships with point values, toss them together with general fits, and go try it out in a scrim, but the specifics can be easy to miss and hard to master. So here is a quick guide and how I think about it and how you might save yourselves from bringing unoptimized and weak setups.
Deciding on ships
So the very first step in the process is to boot up your comp builder spreadsheet. CCP has graciously created one designed off an initial version of my public calculator from back in the AO, and they continue to maintain and update a new release for each tournament. The current link can be found here: https://evetourneylytics.wordpress.com/links-and-guides/
So we make our own copy and are greeted with this:
The next step is to decide what the general idea of the comp is going to be. You want to answer the main questions:
What archetype do you want to start with?
What type of logistics are you looking to use?
What is the core of the comp that you want to build from?
How do you best enable the core to function?
What are the possible win conditions for the comp?
What are the main threats to your comp both from a ship perspective and from an archetype theme persepective?
With these ideas in mind, we can start adding pieces to the puzzle. In this case, let’s look at a relatively straightforward idea: missile kite with a Barghest as the core damage output (allowing for it to be also used as a flag variant). So we have our Barghest, now how do we best support it? Typically, we want to have some form of links, logistics, screen/tackle, application support, and anti-ewar support in this form of comp, and have them all with relatively high speeds to keep up with the Barghest and keep range from bigger, heavier targets to make use of the projection from the RHMLs. So we can build a list of considerations for additional ships:
So we quickly throw together some basic options from the above:
The first comp I would consider to be relatively standard and makes use of typical ships we’d see though pays somewhat for multiples of several core ships. The damage is relatively light but depending on the opponents core would be sufficient to crack most logistics. There’s good anti-ewar frigate support in the Jackdaws, and good control against heavier cores with few projected dps ships in the Keres or to help win a damp war with the ability to pass damps to targets. Finally, the Hyena is useful as both a screener and for it’s target painter to help the Barghest apply.
The second comp is more adventurous, with the second one making use of some heavier damage at a trade off of losing the Scimitar or in the case of a Scimitar ban. It also loses the Hyena, but in this case we can be creative with midslot usage across the other ships. In particular, the Nighthawk or Bifrost are great candidates to utilize a spare mid, giving the former’s heavy base tank and the latter’s abundance of midslots. The Jackdaws can also be used in this case to provide additional application or remote sensor boosting support.
Finally, the third comp would be useful as a RLML flykiller of sorts with the added damage from a flag Barghest and the Stork with information links to reduce the effectiveness of enemy ewar and increase lock range from the cruisers that typically have short targeting range.
So this is the general method of building out a comp, but we can go much deeper.
Counting (Mid) Slots
One of the main exercises I go through when building a comp is determining how best to make use of available mid slots or other utility slots. For example, the Stork can commonly spare 2 of its midslots to help the overall comp, whether it’s in the form of remote sensor boosters or target painters, or even tackle mods. Another comparison to draw is the Drake Navy Issue vs. Cyclone Fleet Issue. The prior has perhaps a spare mid to use, while the latter can much more readily use two links given the two free utility high slots vs. the single one on the DNI. Sure it needs to drop a rig in this case for the ability to run two links at a time, but it’s a serious consideration. To note, teams have run 2 link DNIs in the past and it is viable in some cases to drop one of the launchers for the link, but the CFI offers a platform that already does that.
Counting mids was incredibly valuable in AT XIII when they could be used for scripted ewar of all varieties and made armor tanking typical shield ships a very viable strategy (or not tanking them like Odins did with their Claymores). But even still, given the prevalence of scripted ewar, mid slots have a premium value in being able to fit remote sensor boosters, remote tracking computers, or other supporting modules.
An example of theory
With all that together, I wanted to add an example sheet of where Plug N Play’s sheet was getting to last year. Keep in mind nearly all of these comps never saw the light of getting fits added to the ships, but they were just generally considered and almost always rejected as unviable but potentially useful thought experiments.
Going forward I’d love to expand more on this topic and get into specific fitting creation, but the scope of this post would end up miles long with that, so I’ll save it for another post.
With Alliance Tournament XIX wrapping up last weekend, now is the perfect time to review the meta throughout the tournament.
When looking at performance, I classified the comps into the primary archetypes they were fielded as. With some wiggle room and some teams fielding a random assortment of ships that loosely matched a given archetype, I did my best to group them based on how they functioned in the given matchup and the fitting choices for the teams that brought them.
Name
Times Fielded
Win Rate
Gunboat
45
51%
Heavy Armor Control
24
58%
Heavy Armor Brawl
12
33%
HAM Rush
10
50%
Kingslayer
10
40%
HML Kite
9
56%
Drone Control
7
71%
Heavy Armor Projection
5
40%
Drone Kite
4
50%
Flykiiler
3
67%
Minmatar Rush
3
0%
Two Leshak Core
3
67%
Tinker
1
0%
The Gunboat archetype was by far the most fielded, appearing in over one third of all comps during the tournament. It’s easy to see why. Given the prevalence of scripted ewar, many of the primary threats to the archetype being heavy rush or other well projecting bulky DPS cores were relegated to being flown rarely as they can get hard countered by ewar control. Gunboats have enough damage distribution that disruption is difficult, and the archetype also has enough flexibility that, when used by a team with excellent execution and understanding, can be flown into nearly any matchup with reasonable expectation of success. This year they were the general swiss army knife comp and had many alternative variations that banning it out entirely was nearly impossible, rather you banned for the flavors you wanted to see or to ban certain teams off their optimal setups. That said, the win rate leveled out into the second week as the strongest teams all began to show their gunboat counters, primarily coming in the form of some alternative heavy armor cores and the new drone comps.
After that we saw a significant number of bwar or other heavy armor control core comps. I classified most any big bulky armor core that relied heavily on ewar cruisers or frigates into this bucket. As expected given the scripted ewar and ewar restriction rules from this year, tech 1 disruption cruisers, electronic attack frigates, and tech 1 disruption frigates were all heavily utilized. These comps were clearly generated from the success of THL (Hydra) last year with their Purple Mistress flag barghest comp and some teams were even speculative enough to run it with multiple battleships, forgoing the command ship links in favor of double command destroyers, or other individual modifications to the general plan of the comp. Throughout the tournament, these comps saw success when used against mid-tier execution teams who were unable to handle the incoming disruption in a timely manner and slowly bled out with a lack of aggression into one of the lowest damage archetypes in the meta.
One archetype that really started to come out in the second weekend, popularized by some of the veteran teams with THL, White Flag., and Tuskers, were the drone based comps. These were either the Eos/Ishtar/logi frigate drone kite cores utilizing their range, resists and general bulk to wear out an enemy trying to close the gap, finding major success particularly against NH based rush cores, or they were the Armageddon/Armageddon Navy Issue/Arbitrator/Mobile drone cores that again disrupted the opponents core damage and were particularly effective as an anti-control based core in themselves.
Rush comps again struggled this year given the prevalence of high damage projection gunboat comps and heavy core ewar control comps that were able to slow down key ships and remove the incoming damage through disruption or quicker applying damage. Missile and shield kite comps similarly struggled, showing how removing the ability for these ships to field their own forms of ewar (RIP damp/disrupt Jackdaws, Claymores, and faction cruisers) and forcing them to reduce their screening and damage capabilities to retain their control and damage mitigation led to a significant weakening of the overall archetype. Kingslayer comps similarly found challenges into both the armor control cores and gunboat cores as they were unable to clip either any core ships in the former or enough core damage to trade effectively in the latter given the lower reliance on logistics in the gunboat meta.
Overall, my key points are:
The 4 to a size restriction continues to open up gunboat possibilities particularly in an otherwise control heavy meta
Continuing to allow scripts again made control a very strong focus
Restricting ewar to only bonused hulls of all types severely hindered many shield comps from being able to contest into the main metas
Most brawling cores (other than flag Tobi web Vindi) found it difficult to close range enough to apply damage and force close range fights
In my next few posts, I’ll take a look at how the meta evolved over the tournament and how different teams saw and personalized each archetype.
To start out, I want to say that this is my retirement announcement. Maybe I’ll pull a TB12 for next year’s tournament, but at this point RL commitments and other challenges make that unlikely at best. The true time commitment to contribute appropriately to a contending team is on the order of hundreds of hours and is not something I’m capable or willing to put forth going forward.
That said, my time in the tournament scene in EVE has been incredible and I want to thank a ton of people. So I’ll put down a quick list here. If I missed you, I apologize, but it’s been over a decade of tournament related work at this point and I need to start somewhere.
CCP Aurora – Without you tournaments would never have returned to EVE. Thank you deeply for all the time and effort you individually contributed to making these a reality again
CCP Swift/Zelus/Overload and all other behind the scenes members of CCP (RIP Logibro, Rise, Fozzie, Antiquarian, Chair, Leggybro, Desk) who have made tournaments what they are
Casper, Wild, Jero and everyone else who turned 5v5s from a spreadsheet and messing around SiSi Thera into a series format at great personal cost and giving CCP clear evidence that the tournament community was far stronger than it seemed
Radakos and Avery for letting me not actually contribute in scrims or real fights yet letting me determine theory for the past few years, I truly wish I had been able to be more available timewise
All my other teammates from AT17-19, the list here is too long to continue, but you’ve put up with drama, highs and lows, and I hope you’ve all learned and enjoyed the time as much as I have
Everyone else keeping the tournament scene going strong
With that out of the way, I’m now making a second announcement. I’m starting an EVE Tournaments related blog that I will be posting regular content on as long as these tournaments keep going. Much like retired players working for ESPN, I haven’t lost the passion for tournaments or the game in general (even if I meme that TQ is trash, please kill all giant nullblocks and give me back 2008 circa Ev0ke roaming zealot gangs) and I want to now use what time I had been spending toward one team on trying to pass on the knowledge I’ve gained over the years and continue to drive the competitive scene as a whole forward.
As we saw this year, the parity between teams is increasing, and as a result teams like Fraternity, HLVNASE, Dracarys and others had strong showings. Many of these teams have been formed and reformed and have strong veteran cores, but we’ve also seen some more upcoming teams with decent theorycrafting and execution giving these veterans potential runs for their money. Boundary Experts of personal note have done a great job learning and transitioning into a strong team.
That said, there is still a wide gap in understanding between the best of the best and many of the contenders that can make deep runs given favorable comp selection and tournament draws. I hope this blog helps to narrow that gap in knowledge and continues to push for even more exciting and dramatic tournaments in the future.
What can you expect going forward on this blog? Here’s a short list of the content I look to post and as always I’m happy to answer any questions or have deep drawn out discussions of theory. I have shuttered my Discord account for like the 8th time IYKYK but please feel free to send emails to shomenao at gmail dot com and I’ll also be working to get other methods of contact that allow for more back and forth set up as well.