These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

A Plea to Reason: Allow Hydra and Outbreak to compete

Author
Halarach
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#41 - 2012-05-27 09:05:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Halarach
If hydra and outbreak really wanted to collude to win this tournament against the new rules, they would have appeared to train completely separately but would have shared stuff outside of game, forums voice comms etc. instead.

Anybody saying otherwise is just making a fool of himself.

Garmon and Zara are smart people you know (albeit naive this time for thinking being open with CCP was the way to go I guess, they wanted to trick us anyway and did so)
Wheedily
Megaton Inc.
#42 - 2012-05-27 09:55:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Wheedily
Halarach wrote:
If hydra and outbreak really wanted to collude to win this tournament against the new rules, they would have appeared to train completely separately but would have shared stuff outside of game, forums voice comms etc. instead.

Anybody saying otherwise is just making a fool of himself.

Garmon and Zara are smart people you know (albeit naive this time for thinking being open with CCP was the way to go I guess, they wanted to trick us anyway and did so)


This, "they got *caught* breaking the rules" is just silly here, of course CCP can monitor their own test server and anyone knows it so if Hydra+OB engaged in something on there they had to assume it will be ok for CCP even with the unanswered emails.

Blahblah

Gunnar Twenty
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#43 - 2012-05-27 15:19:09 UTC
michael boltonIII wrote:
Gunnar and Intigo, if you wish to have a logical argument for your case, I feel I have made a particularly solid argument in post #9 of this thread that has gone completely unaddressed by proponents of your cause.


I don't see what there is for me to address from that post.

I have already conceded to everything you brought up. I will repeat what I said from the first post, which is that I accept Hydra/OB did not meet CCP's definition of playing by the rules.

You mention, and I paraphrase, that a big alliance could do a stunt where they enter 8 fragment teams using the same practice methods if Hydra/OB were unbanned. As I said, I would not mind seeing a combined entry from the two teams. I would also not mind seeing any alternative form of sanction that does not prevent them from competing in the aspect of the game they most cherish.

As for your giant alliance trying to enter 8 teams in the future using the same methods, well at worst they would be similarly apprehended and forced to merge all 8 into 1. But given that there has been no precedent in the Hydra/OB case, whereas after this current incident CCP's letter of the law will be much more transparent, I am not so sure that future alliance can claim to misunderstand CCP's intent on the matter.

So to conclude, there is nothing in your argument that suggests it would be a bad idea to at least let Hydra/OB enter one team for the upcoming AT.
Cheryl Nome
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2012-05-27 15:22:14 UTC
Gunnar Twenty wrote:

So to conclude, there is nothing in your argument that suggests it would be a bad idea to at least let Hydra/OB enter one team for the upcoming AT.


Well you were one team afterall, so I don't see a problem with that.
Wheedily
Megaton Inc.
#45 - 2012-05-27 16:14:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Wheedily
Cheryl Nome wrote:
Gunnar Twenty wrote:

So to conclude, there is nothing in your argument that suggests it would be a bad idea to at least let Hydra/OB enter one team for the upcoming AT.


Well you were one team afterall, so I don't see a problem with that.

Indeed one team, in AT IX. But I agree with the sentiment that if CCP felt so strongly that "they were just going to one team it again" forcing Hydra/OB to enter one combined team like with RvB would have been the best compromise, instead of this bullshit.

Blahblah

Cede Forster
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#46 - 2012-05-27 16:38:26 UTC
They decided to risked it.

After all is said and done, they took the risk, knowing that it might get them into trouble.

If you take a risk, you do it for a reason, for profit.
If you do not take a risk, you do it for a reason too, you do not want to take chances.

They decided to go roll the dice and they lost. The lesson is quite simple, if you have doubt its allowed you know that you take a chance, you know you might get the profit and you know that it might go bad.

It went bad, deal with it. Maybe next time more luck or maybe you decide to play safe because that is what EVE is about, taking risk and getting burned.


On a final note: If you have a rule created (and informaly named after you), you might know better then to test the exact limits because they WILL burn you if they get a chance, that much was clear.


ScoRpS
caedam scorpionibus
#47 - 2012-05-27 17:23:09 UTC
Time Funnel wrote:
For those of you following along:

1. SHOCK & DENIAL

2. PAIN & GUILT

3. ANGER & BARGAINING

4. "DEPRESSION", REFLECTION, LONELINESS

5. THE UPWARD TURN

6. RECONSTRUCTION & WORKING THROUGH

7. ACCEPTANCE & HOPE


I think we're at stage 4.

Time to HTFU and move to stage 5. nice list.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#48 - 2012-05-29 11:14:40 UTC
I heard that in AT 11 only PL and PL subteams are going to be allowed in the tournament, all other alliances are being disqualified/banned under the not-PL rule.

can anyone confirm this
Nevigrofnu Mrots
#49 - 2012-05-29 11:27:57 UTC
Gunnar Twenty wrote:
Preamble

It's no secret that people at the top of most skill-intensive activities tend to be ones with an imbalanced lifestyle. You have to dedicate yourself fully if you want to be the best at something, often at the expense of life's other priorities. Principally for this reason, I have only ever played EVE intermittently and casually. I was always enticed by "internet spaceships" and its associated community on an abstract level, but the hands-on experience of EVE's game mechanics, the logistics, and the long hours of commitment required to reap the rewards of good PvP somehow always wore me down in short manner.

I was on a longer than typical hiatus from the game when I was informed that Hydra had been disqualified from AT10. My heart sank with this news. Some pilots in Hydra I've known intimately for over a decade (in fact I convinced Duncan Tanner to stick with EVE after he initially found it unbearably dull and lifeless running L3 missions in his Brutix), some I now socialize with outside of the game as a result of it, but near unanimously I have become acquainted with the kind yet driven nature of the members in this Alliance.

Immediately I started mulling on how I might possibly lend help to Hydra's plight. I figured my best bet would be to write an impassioned speech and resub so I could login and post it in the EVE Forum. So here goes.


A Call to Reason

I am going to try my best here to inject some much needed perspective into this issue. There's a lot of hateful fumes flowing around, and this is my attempt to clear the air. It might well be a futile one, but I intensely hope Sreegs, the AT10 governance team, or even someone higher up at CCP perusing these forums might be impacted to remediate, despite their current reluctance to negotiate.

First I will ask you to consider how these measures will affect the long term health of this game. I mentioned before my casual attitude towards EVE earlier. The elite members of Hydra who practice in preparation for AT10 adopt an entirely opposite attitude. Many of them spend more hours on EVE than they do at their day jobs. Such zeal is often either respected or ridiculed, but one thing's for sure - nobody ever achieved anything great while half-assing it. These people want to achieve great things through EVE. As ridiculous as it may appear to the rest of us, EVE is the most important conduit through which they define their achievements in life. So how do you think it makes them feel when you callously impose such sanctions? Most are going to feel grief only matched by their prior passion for the game. I imagine most will quit when they realize how little their effort and enthusiasm for the game is reciprocated in the form of appreciation by the developers. I will do likewise, as I cannot condone an organization who shows such little consideration for its most ardent supporters.

Big deal you say. The mere tens of Hydra subscribers lost will be too insignificant to count. But surely there will be a ripple effect. These are the players who most newcomers strive to eventually emulate (at least when it comes to ship combat). They understand the finer details of the game, and have achieved a level of mastery worth learning from. They form part of the hardcore contingent. From what I gather, the rest of Eve's seasoned veterans are in unanimous support of Hydra and OB (In my humble opinion, the few who mock and revel in their current plight, or feel that appropriate justice has been meted, are distant and casual observers without a firm grasp of the facts and implications). It's common business sense not to **** off your hardcore supporters. In Eve this is doubly true, as it is very casual-unfriendly. These seasoned players have stuck with Eve through all vicissitudes. They are immensely loyal to the game, always putting into perspective temporary missteps by developers and persisting imperfections in the game by emphasizing enjoyment of the big picture. They form the backbone from which newcomers can perch on and benefit from years of accrued insight into the well hidden rewards of playing Eve for the long run. They are the best endorsers of Eve that money can buy, and you get their services free of charge! The current PC games market is gravitating towards Free to Play. With the intense competition for market share and the abundance of choice available to the casual experimenter, does it make sense to take on the burden of Eve's hefty financial commitment unless a person has aims to becoming one of these hardcore players? One elite player could impact hundreds of newcomers to hang in there and become repeat customers.


NO

Sentence is written down

These dramatic/self-pitying posts will not revert it

MAN UP
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#50 - 2012-05-29 11:57:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
get over it finally, hydra is not participating for a good reason.

I personally dont want to see Hydra vs. Outbreak once again and I care even less about which rule they broke and got banned for.
The only what matters is they arent in.
Cody Zamorah
Doomheim
#51 - 2012-05-29 12:20:26 UTC
Let's revert all the way then.

Everyone who has done anything within the rules and then later the rule got changed so their actions are against the rules are now banned for crimes in the passt.

Seems the simplest way to act then.
Why stop at Hydra / Outbreak.

Let's ban all the Boomerang tactic users, it's against the rules now, so as soon as they fly a ship again capable of the Boomerang tactic we might aswel assume they will break it again.
And let's go on and find all adjustments and let's punish all those who done legitematly in the passt but as soon as it looks asif they use the same tactic (they don't have to use it, appearance is enough) we smack them hard with the hammer.

Now THAT I call proactive rule enforcement.

The remaining 250 players will have all the room they want to play the game without issues then.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#52 - 2012-05-30 10:21:21 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
get over it finally, hydra is not participating for a good reason.

I personally dont want to see Hydra vs. Outbreak once again and I care even less about which rule they broke and got banned for.
The only what matters is they arent in.


So what you're saying is that you don't want to see the top two teams from last year returning in some form (i.e. a merged team, just to prevent them facing each other / throwing matches)? You just want worse alliances and pilots, huh?


Cody Zamorah
Doomheim
#53 - 2012-05-30 10:26:18 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
get over it finally, hydra is not participating for a good reason.

I personally dont want to see Hydra vs. Outbreak once again and I care even less about which rule they broke and got banned for.
The only what matters is they arent in.


Ah, but we should care. Because as soon as we don't we also won't care if you get banned for breaking a rule now by something you did a year ago and wasn't against the rules.
xxzartanxx
Doomheim
#54 - 2012-06-02 10:39:57 UTC
Copine Callmeknau wrote:
Cheat less and you might not get barred from tourny's



This is like a steroid-pumped sprinter being barred from the olympics, and then complaining about it Lol


THIS.


Learn your lesson and play by the rules next year.
Cody Zamorah
Doomheim
#55 - 2012-06-02 11:42:08 UTC
xxzartanxx wrote:

Learn your lesson and play by the rules next year.


They played by the rules last year and they were trying to make head and tails about the purposely vague rules this year as to play within the new rules.
CCP admitted the rules were vague on purpose so they would have more leeway for GM's and Devs to "utilize" them at their own discretion.
In comes a CCP employee with more than average hurt feelings about AT9 and all of a sudden the rule let's him sway all the way to the left, whereas if another employee with no hurt feelings at all would have swayed a lot more to the right. Where left is tournament ban and right is communication which results in atleast 1 party to enter the tournament.

It's this kind of ruling by how the **** swings that pisses me off.
Hey You
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#56 - 2012-06-02 12:01:46 UTC
i supported hydra and ob when they got banned.

but this whining about it is getting stupid and annoying. No one cares what random no one thinks on this matter anymore. So drop it already.

get over it seat up grab beer and enjoy the tournament.
Cody Zamorah
Doomheim
#57 - 2012-06-02 16:47:37 UTC
Hey You wrote:
No one cares what random no one thinks on this matter anymore.


Even random nobodies have the same rights. It's not about who has which ticker what decides if their message is important.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#58 - 2012-06-02 17:02:46 UTC
well. they still can meet in nullsec, orbit a can for 15mins, fraps it and call it a match.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Lemster
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#59 - 2012-06-02 17:24:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Lemster
Cody Zamorah wrote:
Hey You wrote:
No one cares what random no one thinks on this matter anymore.


Even random nobodies have the same rights. It's not about who has which ticker what decides if their message is important.


Actually, none of us have any rights in here. It's not a democracy, it's a dictatorship. The dictators have spoken. Whether we sub or go play another game is the only actual right we have. You've spammed enough over the last few weeks that you've made your point, so if you're still not happy why not exercise your right and go play WoW or something.
Cody Zamorah
Doomheim
#60 - 2012-06-02 18:59:10 UTC
Lemster, you should have been that vocal in your early pet days. Maybe then you would have become relevant by now.