These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Dev Blog: Alliance Tournament XI... and a call for commentators!

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
CoiledVipers
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#61 - 2013-05-15 17:39:38 UTC  |  Edited by: CoiledVipers
nonsciolist wrote:
CoiledVipers wrote:
nonsciolist wrote:
Jaangel wrote:
Can someone please explain why the cut off for creating an alliance was before the time of the dev blog.


It's already been discussed and explained several times already. CCP wants players to represent the alliance they are members of, not makeshift alliances created specifically to form a team for the alliance tournament.


Then why couldn't they have made the rule something like 'You need to have been a member of your alliance for 6 months to be eligible' and told us 6 months and a week ago ?


Because people do actually change corp/alliance from time to time, if they'd done that it'd exclude far more people who wanted to take part, including those who wanted to compete for the alliance they're members of.




But at least those people would have been making a decision between being eligible or switching corps/alliances. Nobody would have been excluded without knowing what was going on. This method just screws over people who had no idea that this rule was going to be implemented.
My newest video:    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=QgD4TLJqJq8    My second newest video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4wySVKv32_I
Tyrrax Thorrk
Guiding Hand Social Club
#62 - 2013-05-15 17:42:09 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Green Gambit wrote:
you don't have a problem.

Yes I do, your often repeated opinion that I don't have a problem is incorrect. *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal
CCP Fozzie even acknowledged it in his reply to me that they immediately thought of how it would affect me personally when they were making this rules change.

Green Gambit wrote:

Actually if all these players have the same attitude, and sense of entitlement that you have, then to be honest, I think the tournament will be all the better for it.


*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal
Tourneys in the past have almost always been better for having my teams competing, same with other tournament veterans who will be excluded by this rule like DHB Wildcat.
Bagehi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#63 - 2013-05-15 17:45:10 UTC
Green Gambit wrote:
Tyrrax Thorrk wrote:
with wanting to continue using the the character people associate the most with my teams


Sorry - are you an alliance? I can name the alliances that won the _ALLIANCE_ tournament in the past... Don't recall any individual players winning the _ALLIANCE_ tournament.


I really can't imagine CCP having a problem with letting Tyrrax put his main back in Dystopia so he can field a battle badger. They don't want A & B teams because events like the final match in AT IX are stupid and unsporting. I doubt they are afraid that Dystopia is somehow PL's B-team.
nonsciolist
Motiveless Malignity
Deepwater Hooligans
#64 - 2013-05-15 17:50:07 UTC  |  Edited by: nonsciolist
CoiledVipers wrote:
nonsciolist wrote:


Because people do actually change corp/alliance from time to time, if they'd done that it'd exclude far more people who wanted to take part, including those who wanted to compete for the alliance they're members of.




But at least those people would have been making a decision between being eligible or switching corps/alliances. Nobody would have been excluded without knowing what was going on. This method just screws over people who had no idea that this rule was going to be implemented.


But that would defeat the entire point of the rule?

The idea is that people aren't make a decision to join an alliance based on alliance tournament eligibility.

(unless that alliance is actually your "home alliance", in which case they'll consider allowing it if you submit a petition)
CoiledVipers
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#65 - 2013-05-15 18:02:18 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
nonsciolist wrote:
CoiledVipers wrote:
nonsciolist wrote:


Because people do actually change corp/alliance from time to time, if they'd done that it'd exclude far more people who wanted to take part, including those who wanted to compete for the alliance they're members of.




But at least those people would have been making a decision between being eligible or switching corps/alliances. Nobody would have been excluded without knowing what was going on. This method just screws over people who had no idea that this rule was going to be implemented.


But that would defeat the entire point of the rule?

The idea is that people aren't make a decision to join an alliance based on alliance tournament eligibility.

(unless that alliance is actually your "home alliance", in which case they'll consider allowing it if you submit a petition)


*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal
A lot of pilots that will be competing have chosen their corps/alliances just because of the AT*Snip
* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal
If the point is that people are supposed to represent their home alliance, then there should have been a clearly outlined rule about how long a player or corporation needs to have been in an alliance for it to classify as their home alliance, with at least a few days of notice. That way nobody would have been dicked over without warning. If someone wasn't eligible, at least it would have been a decision made instead of what we have now, which is a quite a few pissed off and completely surprised pilots.
*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal
My newest video:    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=QgD4TLJqJq8    My second newest video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4wySVKv32_I
Shadoo
North Eastern Swat
#66 - 2013-05-15 18:05:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Shadoo
xo3e wrote:
Quote:
Lastly, to fly with an alliance in the Alliance Tournament XI you will need to have been a member of that alliance from downtime this morning, at 11:00 UTC May 15th.


take it as you like, CCP
but it is Teams who wins
not an Alliances behind this teams.

and today you screwed many teams


For teams who like to play, are you saying New Eden Open, Fanfest Tournament and monthly Syndicate Competitive League isn't enough esports opportunities? You also want to create makeshift pretend alliances to compete in the once a year ALLIANCE TOURNAMENT?

edit: I guess I'm just gobsmacked that CCP trying to very clearly re-align the existing two CCP ran/sponsored esports events to their respective audiences to 1. ALLIANCES (AT) and 2. TEAMS (NEO) is somehow unclear or not welcome v0v.

Hopefully, this year, more actual real&recognizable alliances enter the competition and we get an actual Alliance Tournament going again.
Tyrrax Thorrk
Guiding Hand Social Club
#67 - 2013-05-15 18:08:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyrrax Thorrk
None of those are anywhere near as good as the alliance tournament , NEO was pretty much garbage and SCL is only really good as practise for the CCP tournaments so yes that isn't enough high level esports opportunities

Alliance Tournament is also the only one with prizes worth a significant amount.

But hey at least this rule makes it easier for PL to finally reclaim its tourney throne ;P
Green Gambit
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#68 - 2013-05-15 18:17:26 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Tyrrax Thorrk wrote:

Green Gambit wrote:

Actually if all these players have the same attitude, and sense of entitlement that you have, then to be honest, I think the tournament will be all the better for it.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal
Tourneys in the past have almost always been better for having my teams competing, same with other tournament veterans who will be excluded by this rule like DHB Wildcat.


Wow, I presume you fly battleships in the tournaments, so the ships are big enough to fit your ego in?
Ashina Sito
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#69 - 2013-05-15 18:20:19 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
\0/

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal


Quote:
Lastly, to fly with an alliance in the Alliance Tournament XI you will need to have been a member of that alliance from downtime this morning, at 11:00 UTC May 15th. Each alliance may only field one team.



Last year there was at least a month between the announcement and the need for a pilot to be in the alliance. Dropping this on us now means that several players will not be able to participate in the Tourney that had planned to do so with the team I was going to be on. Do note the "was" since I am one of the pilots effected.

I was training up a pilot just to loan out to another player using a PLEX transfer. We were waiting for the announcement to they would lose as little SP on their main while waiting for the AT. Now this does not work.

I do not mind, in fact prefer the fact that this new rule is in effect. It is the unannounced implementation that is the issue.

(someone reading the thread has told me that we can try a petition to get on the team. We will make the attempt. Still, It would have been better to notify the players of the change in advance. For the future, good rule but it does not match the previous rules and therefore is an unexpected change that ruins the plans of many players.)
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#70 - 2013-05-15 18:20:32 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Green Gambit wrote:
Tyrrax Thorrk wrote:

Green Gambit wrote:

Actually if all these players have the same attitude, and sense of entitlement that you have, then to be honest, I think the tournament will be all the better for it.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal
Tourneys in the past have almost always been better for having my teams competing, same with other tournament veterans who will be excluded by this rule like DHB Wildcat.


Wow, I presume you fly battleships in the tournaments, so the ships are big enough to fit your ego in?


I have to agree with green here. You're throwing a tantrum because people wont see your name on a screen despite the fact you have multiple characters that do meet the entry criteria.

honestly, check your ego at the door, this isnt just about you.

Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin

you're welcome
Shadoo
North Eastern Swat
#71 - 2013-05-15 18:23:43 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Tyrrax Thorrk wrote:
None of those are anywhere near as good as the alliance tournament , NEO was pretty much garbage and SCL is only really good as practise for the CCP tournaments so yes that isn't enough high level esports opportunities

Alliance Tournament is also the only one with prizes worth a significant amount.

But hey at least this rule makes it easier for PL to finally reclaim its tourney throne ;P


How do you determine "good"? I considered SCL #3 probably the most competitive EVE esports even I've ever watched so far. Is that not a definition of "good"?

Or are you talking about price pool? Is NEO (in theory) with a 10,000$ cash pool + other stuff not better for small teams? And as *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal

Or are you talking about exposure/viewership? I agree in that sense Alliance Tournament is indeed "good", but surely it's "good" because we are following our arch-enemies, our "friends" we love to see fail and our real friends we'd like to see succeed. Is it not better if people like SOLAR, Red Alliance, Goonswarm, TEST Alliance, etc etc etc are competing than let's say a new alliance called "Lord Commander Jon Snow Dies" which is made out of 20 160mil SP characters and only exists during the summer.

It seems like a very sound strategy to bring the "Alliance" back to the "Alliance Tournament" and put the exceptional teams to New Eden Open with team-oriented prices. And as you well know -- Pandemic Legion loses in every tournament, no matter of the format or people participating.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#72 - 2013-05-15 18:32:38 UTC
I would totally apply but i'm quite sure letting the other commentator get a word in would be a requirement and i'm terrible at that.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Tyrrax Thorrk
Guiding Hand Social Club
#73 - 2013-05-15 18:33:32 UTC
I agree SCL 3 was very competitive, probably more competitive than this alliance tournament is going to be, in part because of this rule change. - However hardly anyone watched it and the prize pool was tiny compared to the Alliance Tournament's
Like 4x as many people watched my EVE/HoN gambling match as watched SCL 3..

I do want to see SOLAR, Red Alliance, Goonswarm, TEST Alliance etc competing, but I also want to see teams like Verge of Collapse and Goggle Wearing Internet Crime Fighters, established teams that are heavily affected by this unannounced change. (and Dystopia)

NEO was basically a joke, and even if they had actually paid out the 10k then that's nothing compared to 100 limited issue ships.

PS; Did you forget PL did win SCL 2 btw ? :)
CoiledVipers
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#74 - 2013-05-15 18:34:56 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Shadoo wrote:
Tyrrax Thorrk wrote:
None of those are anywhere near as good as the alliance tournament , NEO was pretty much garbage and SCL is only really good as practise for the CCP tournaments so yes that isn't enough high level esports opportunities

Alliance Tournament is also the only one with prizes worth a significant amount.

But hey at least this rule makes it easier for PL to finally reclaim its tourney throne ;P


How do you determine "good"? I considered SCL #3 probably the most competitive EVE esports even I've ever watched so far. Is that not a definition of "good"?

Or are you talking about price pool? Is NEO (in theory) with a 10,000$ cash pool + other stuff not better for small teams?
*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal

Or are you talking about exposure/viewership? I agree in that sense Alliance Tournament is indeed "good", but surely it's "good" because we are following our arch-enemies, our "friends" we love to see fail and our real friends we'd like to see succeed. Is it not better if people like SOLAR, Red Alliance, Goonswarm, TEST Alliance, etc etc etc are competing than let's say a new alliance called "Lord Commander John Snow Dies" which is made out of 20 160mil SP characters and only exists during the summer.

It seems like a very sound strategy to bring the "Alliance" back to the "Alliance Tournament" and put the exceptional teams to New Eden Open with team-oriented prices. And as you well know -- Pandemic Legion loses in every tournament, no matter of the format or people participating.



NEO prize pool remains unpaid as far as I know, and nobody watched it because nobody cares about teams or players they've never heard of.

SCL takes place on the test server, and is not very widely viewed (or cared about). How would you define a 'good' tournament?

I agree that his change is a good one, but it would have been so easy to avoid all of the unhappy pilots with a little foresight from ccp by implementing it better.
My newest video:    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=QgD4TLJqJq8    My second newest video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4wySVKv32_I
xo3e
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#75 - 2013-05-15 18:40:20 UTC  |  Edited by: xo3e
Quote:
How do you determine "good"? I considered SCL #3 probably the most competitive EVE esports even I've ever watched so far. Is that not a definition of "good"?


my dota 2 premade games is competitive and intense too, but im not comparing it to The International.

i think that concerning the tournament, word "good" means that it has large viewership, good prize pool and challenge
i cant say that tournament is good if it has only one or two things of this list.

NEO online viewers count was lower than of avarage scrub dota2 stream with pudge hooking creeps. i cant call that a good tournament

Signature removed. Navigator
Kadesh Priestess
Descendance.
GoonSwarm.
#76 - 2013-05-15 19:03:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Kadesh Priestess
I find it amusing how various types of entities got crossed in the single set of rules.

The new rule says that this will be competition of ingame entities (alliances), which will be using another ingame entities as resource (characters), yet it mentions real entities (players are unable to participate in 2 or more teams) and will probably have ruling which takes into consideration meta-game connection between characters (for guys with multiple accounts like tyrrax). To put it blunt: is it competition of teams of real people or alliances of characters?

It feels inconsistent to say at least. It will let me (individual and solo pilot, making no contribution to ingame alliance activity) compete, because i joined hydra quite a long ago and didn't bother to leave it, while breaking out-of-game connections of people from multiple alliances and not letting them to compete together. Let alone cases where players are moved to various alliances to overcome technical limitations (e.g. rvb case).

Not that it will hurt me or my team, but i feel bad for people who are getting cut because of this rule. Also it looks to be one-off rule because next year everyone will be prepared.

ps Tyrrax, with any possible outcome - you won't get hurt as much as we previous year were. I still remember how bad it tasted (and esp smacking coming from various sides on forums, trying to justify ccp's position) and really hope you will solve this somehow or just be a man and overcome it.
IceGuerilla
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#77 - 2013-05-15 19:08:40 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
So to sum up, people barred from competition/messed about a bit due to rule so far:


  • DHB Wildcat
  • Tyrrax Thorrk
  • Perihelion Alliance
  • Various from RvB (possibly)
  • 8 CAS team from the NEO


Anyone else I've forgotten?
Dracoth Simertet
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
#78 - 2013-05-15 19:10:28 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
IceGuerilla wrote:
So to sum up, people barred from competition due to rule so far:


  • DHB Wildcat
  • Tyrrax Thorrk
  • Perihelion Alliance
  • People from RvB (possibly)


Anyone else I've forgotten?


We aren't barred just messed about a bit, out of interest how is Perihelion affected?

o7
Drac
Shadoo
North Eastern Swat
#79 - 2013-05-15 19:16:28 UTC
xo3e wrote:
Quote:
How do you determine "good"? I considered SCL #3 probably the most competitive EVE esports even I've ever watched so far. Is that not a definition of "good"?


my dota 2 premade games is competitive and intense too, but im not comparing it to The International.

i think that concerning the tournament, word "good" means that it has large viewership, good prize pool and challenge
i cant say that tournament is good if it has only one or two things of this list.

NEO online viewers count was lower than of avarage scrub dota2 stream with pudge hooking creeps. i cant call that a good tournament


So. Now that we've established that the chief complaint seems to be around viewership for "good" tournament, why do you think New Eden Open -- which is a very competitive TEAM BASED tournament with heavy weight teams such as "Goggle Wearing Internet Crime Fighters", "Blueballers" , "WhyDash" and "Expendables" so on competing for 10,000$ cash price didn't get those viewers?

Would it be a stretch to say it didn't get as many viewers because likes of TEST Alliance, Goonswarm, SOLAR, Red Alliance, Fatal Ascension, Northern Coalition., Nulli Secunda, RAZOR Alliance, etc etc etc weren't on roster and thus pulling their ~80k members to view their team fight against their friends/enemies/etc?

This is The Alliance Tournament. Not "Lets Make an Alliance for 2 Months Tournament", and while I have the greatest respect for competitive teams such as "Goggle Wearing Internet Crime Fighters" -- I tune in to view their teams in NEO/SCL. People who want to tune in to watch these great competitive teams will do so also.

But lets get real here -- people tune in to watch The Alliance Tournament because they expect to see their own alliance, their coalition and their enemies alliances get it on. Surely this new re-alignment and refocus is therefore fair and balanced for viewers and competition alike?
Ashina Sito
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#80 - 2013-05-15 19:45:44 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
IceGuerilla wrote:
So to sum up, people barred from competition due to rule so far:


  • DHB Wildcat
  • Tyrrax Thorrk
  • Perihelion Alliance
  • Various from RvB (possibly)


Anyone else I've forgotten?


8 CAS team from the NEO.