These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New dev blog: Alliance Tournament X Rules

First post
Author
Duncan Tanner
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#81 - 2012-05-03 15:29:41 UTC
Would it be possible to hold the auction *after* the random drawing of teams has been completed?

i.e. Draw 60 teams randomly; announce them, then auction off the last 4 spots.

Thanks.

.

Faffywaffy
SoT
DarkSide.
#82 - 2012-05-03 15:38:38 UTC
CCP Loxy wrote:
Everyone goes into the hat & the much larger auction system which we will post the details of in the next few days. There's never a perfect solution for this but we believe we have the best chance of getting in all the major teams and those that really want a place.


This is ridiculous. I don't mind fighting in the qualifiers like everyone else, but not even have a guaranteed spot for the top alliances from last year is stupid.

There is a perfect solution: top 4 alliances from last year get a reserved spot in the tournament. I've never seen anyone complain about this before and it seems perfectly reasonable. Why would you even come up with the idea of changing it??
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#83 - 2012-05-03 19:45:21 UTC

Tossing a match: While we all love a good fight, and I understand you want to punish people for not fighting, how can you possibly enforce this?

--- Some teams will field joke setups and do things "for the fun of it" when their ability to move up the ladder is essentially hopeless.... Once they give up on winning, they have nothing to lose in the match, but their opponents do....

--- While you can punish the losing team A for purposely losing, you can NOT punish the winning team B... If you do, someone enterprising third party, like a team C or a pro-gambler, can knock out team B by paying team A to purposely throw the match. In such a case, Team B is TOTALLY RUINED and they didn't do anything wrong!!!!!!!! This particular case WILL happen in the second round of the qualifiers when there are a bunch of teams that know they won't make it beyond the qualifiers, and are open to purposely tossing matches!!! Do you see the nightmare it is to enforce this????

---- If losing team A purposely forfeits to winning team B, and you can NOT punish winning team B (for the reasons stated above), then team B WILL still bribe team A to forfeit all they want, because there is no penalty to them to do so.

There is one way you should simplify this rule: If you purposely forfeit a match, you forfeit the tournament...
--- note: you still have problems when teams, after decisively beating an opponent, sacrifice ships to help their opponent move up in the ladder without forfeiting.... You better clarify that too...

Tyrrax Thorrk
Guiding Hand Social Club
#84 - 2012-05-03 21:25:54 UTC
Faffywaffy wrote:
CCP Loxy wrote:
Everyone goes into the hat & the much larger auction system which we will post the details of in the next few days. There's never a perfect solution for this but we believe we have the best chance of getting in all the major teams and those that really want a place.


This is ridiculous. I don't mind fighting in the qualifiers like everyone else, but not even have a guaranteed spot for the top alliances from last year is stupid.

There is a perfect solution: top 4 alliances from last year get a reserved spot in the tournament. I've never seen anyone complain about this before and it seems perfectly reasonable. Why would you even come up with the idea of changing it??


What this guy said - tournament isn't improved by the absence of top teams and your quest for "fairness" is stupid.
I'm rather disappointed in you people, obviously haven't learned anything from the mess last time.
Kumq uat
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#85 - 2012-05-04 04:57:53 UTC
In for Boas
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
#86 - 2012-05-04 13:13:26 UTC
Quote:
We will be actively removing those alliances that try and add a ‘B’ or ‘C’ team. We want everyone to have a fair chance but stacking the deck in this manner will not be permitted. This removal will also include the main alliance if we detect anyone trying to field more than one team.

So you want more than 5-6 participants this year then .. good on ya!
Quote:
Alliance Tournament referees can now call a match null and void or declare a result if they feel a team is not competing or throwing a game. This will be entirely at the discretion of the tournament referees.

So you want it to be an actual contest/tournament this year then .. good on ya!

About time you got through your heads that honourable/seriousbusiness competition should not be fashioned after the ridiculous yank phenomenon called "Pro Wrestling" Big smile
Zowie Powers
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#87 - 2012-05-04 16:26:04 UTC
Any chance CCP might define what CCP means by a "B" team?
There appears to be a lot of assumptions flying around about the official definition, since the penalty for infringement is severe, would it not be appropriate to be very specific indeed about what you are banning?

ATX: The best of the rest.

McFly
Peanut Factory
#88 - 2012-05-05 08:34:10 UTC
CCP Loxy,

I've been able to get an app in for a corp to enter the alliance. Will you accept approved apps on May 05 ? or does the 24 hr stasis period have to have completed?

I've got a good few pilots in our brosef corp that I want on my tourney team. But we didnt see the devblog until friday. Which is making it difficult to get this taken care of within the 24 hr ingame stasis timer.
Belona Force
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#89 - 2012-05-05 10:46:04 UTC
Guaranteed spot for top alliances? You have got to be kidding. From what I seen last year I would be happy not to see them back. I want to see some skill out on the field and not ISK. I like a lot of others was done with watching the tournament, but with the new changes, I’m back! Looking for the team with good ship set ups and fittings and skilled pilots and F.C. Cool
Cannery Canoule
War is Bliss
#90 - 2012-05-05 14:43:01 UTC
Belona Force wrote:
Guaranteed spot for top alliances? You have got to be kidding. From what I seen last year I would be happy not to see them back. I want to see some skill out on the field and not ISK. I like a lot of others was done with watching the tournament, but with the new changes, I’m back! Looking for the team with good ship set ups and fittings and skilled pilots and F.C. Cool


The final was pretty awful but not sure what you mean by skill instead of ISK.

Hydra and Outbreak went undefeated in the tournament with both teams. They beat both Darkside, PL and every other team they faced. Funnily enough the only matches either team lost were the ones they rigged (outbreak vs razor, and hydra vs outbreak).

Unless you really believe they paid off all those teams then lol... Although if that's the case then beating Hydra should be easy this year! Just don't let them pay you! Roll
Ryans Revenge
Drunken Wookies
#91 - 2012-05-08 14:50:56 UTC
"All competing pilots must have been members of the alliance for which they are competing, and be a member of that Alliance by downtime on May, 05, 2012."

Does this mean my corp are unable to compete in the alliance tournament as I've only read this devblog today? You gave people 3 days notice to be in an alliance?

I understand this for alliance hopping but I myself was planning to create an alliance for my corp to take part but am now unable to do so as I wasn't around last week.

Thanks
Firnas
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#92 - 2012-05-09 07:05:44 UTC
Would like to see deadline of pilots joining moved from May 5th to something more like May 10th or 15th.

Giving 3 days from announcement probably wasn't enough for some pilots, I know it wasn't for our guys. We send some pilots into the contract's corporations to help them with defense contracts and I couldn't pull guys out fast enough.
sevyn nine
Cutting Edge Incorporated
#93 - 2012-05-10 18:00:22 UTC  |  Edited by: sevyn nine
Tyrrax Thorrk wrote:
Faffywaffy wrote:
CCP Loxy wrote:
Everyone goes into the hat & the much larger auction system which we will post the details of in the next few days. There's never a perfect solution for this but we believe we have the best chance of getting in all the major teams and those that really want a place.


This is ridiculous. I don't mind fighting in the qualifiers like everyone else, but not even have a guaranteed spot for the top alliances from last year is stupid.

There is a perfect solution: top 4 alliances from last year get a reserved spot in the tournament. I've never seen anyone complain about this before and it seems perfectly reasonable. Why would you even come up with the idea of changing it??


What this guy said - tournament isn't improved by the absence of top teams and your quest for "fairness" is stupid.
I'm rather disappointed in you people, obviously haven't learned anything from the mess last time.



I agree (obviously, being the Razor team captain). I am confused and dissapointed by this utterly stupid change. Regardless of the rigging and throwing of matches that went on, you can't deny that the top few teams were strong teams. I'm not sure if we will buy a spot or just let luck dictate our participation.
Raging Beaver
Bean-shidh
The Nameless Alliance
#94 - 2012-05-15 18:22:43 UTC
sevyn nine wrote:
Tyrrax Thorrk wrote:
Faffywaffy wrote:
CCP Loxy wrote:
Everyone goes into the hat & the much larger auction system which we will post the details of in the next few days. There's never a perfect solution for this but we believe we have the best chance of getting in all the major teams and those that really want a place.


This is ridiculous. I don't mind fighting in the qualifiers like everyone else, but not even have a guaranteed spot for the top alliances from last year is stupid.

There is a perfect solution: top 4 alliances from last year get a reserved spot in the tournament. I've never seen anyone complain about this before and it seems perfectly reasonable. Why would you even come up with the idea of changing it??


What this guy said - tournament isn't improved by the absence of top teams and your quest for "fairness" is stupid.
I'm rather disappointed in you people, obviously haven't learned anything from the mess last time.



I agree (obviously, being the Razor team captain). I am confused and dissapointed by this utterly stupid change. Regardless of the rigging and throwing of matches that went on, you can't deny that the top few teams were strong teams. I'm not sure if we will buy a spot or just let luck dictate our participation.


I don't think anyone's trying to deny that the top 4 last year were good. I think that things are this way, as the 2 teams that would theoretically deserve to be handed spots in this year's tournament the most, meaning the champions and vice champions, would have to be excluded according to the new rules. It's these guys you should thank IMHO.
IbanezLaney
The Church of Awesome
Shadow Cartel
#95 - 2012-05-17 03:45:55 UTC
Andrea Griffin wrote:
CCP Loxy wrote:
The neater solution of course being a flash player that had multiple audio selection.
This would be awesome - is this something you will be able to do? When the videos are uploaded to YouTube, is it possible to have multiple audio streams there as well?



They could just put different audio on the left and right channels.
It's a messy solution and only allows 2 options with a stereo audio track - but it works.
Pan control ftw.
IbanezLaney
The Church of Awesome
Shadow Cartel
#96 - 2012-05-17 03:57:00 UTC
Faffywaffy wrote:
CCP Loxy wrote:
Everyone goes into the hat & the much larger auction system which we will post the details of in the next few days. There's never a perfect solution for this but we believe we have the best chance of getting in all the major teams and those that really want a place.


This is ridiculous. I don't mind fighting in the qualifiers like everyone else, but not even have a guaranteed spot for the top alliances from last year is stupid.

There is a perfect solution: top 4 alliances from last year get a reserved spot in the tournament. I've never seen anyone complain about this before and it seems perfectly reasonable. Why would you even come up with the idea of changing it??


Only the previous years winning team should be guaranteed a chance to defend their title. Everyone else should just be randomly drawn.
Trip Phaze
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#97 - 2012-05-24 09:37:11 UTC
CCP Loxy wrote:
Dinta Zembo wrote:
Will we have live streams for the qualifiers this time?


Yes, as a result of last year's experiment and the reaction from the players we identified this as a must have. We will be streaming the qualifiers but it will be low key and simple, at this point we're not sure if there will even be commentary (thoughts?).

hmm, EvE world has been affected by the crisis, a year ago there weren't so many waiting for auctions, CCP really wanted to take from us as much isk as they can?. it would be fair to an automatic draw
Trip Phaze
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#98 - 2012-05-24 10:00:20 UTC
Trip Phaze wrote:
CCP Loxy wrote:
Dinta Zembo wrote:
Will we have live streams for the qualifiers this time?


Yes, as a result of last year's experiment and the reaction from the players we identified this as a must have. We will be streaming the qualifiers but it will be low key and simple, at this point we're not sure if there will even be commentary (thoughts?).

hmm, EvE world has been affected by the crisis, a year ago there weren't so many waiting for auctions, CCP really wanted to take from us as much isk as they can?. it would be fair to an automatic draw


I think this part of the community interested in the Tournament should boycott the auction .