These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

AT XIII RULING: Together We Solo vs Gone Critical - Team Warp-in

First post
Author
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#101 - 2015-08-16 14:44:49 UTC
CCP Logibro wrote:
Both teams were contacted before the ruling was made (Together We Solo was informed, but did not respond before the ruling was made public). Neither team has contested the ruling or otherwise asked us to review our decision, so the original decision stands.

This was a case of a referee mistake, and we are working hard to make sure this doesn't happen again. We don't like it when we miss things anymore than you guys do.

We are still considering providing compensation for losses to both teams (Gone Critical and Nulli Secunda) that were affected by referee error yesterday, but no decision has been made on the matter yet.

Whether they contest the ruling or not shouldn't matter. Every team in the AT is depending on this to be a fair contest where the rules are enforced. The more you shrug off rule violations, the more you throw the end result of the tournament into question.
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#102 - 2015-08-16 16:28:06 UTC
CCP Logibro wrote:
Neither team has contested the ruling or otherwise asked us to review our decision, so the original decision stands.


That is irrelevant. Whether these two teams are fine with your decision or not doesn't negate the fact that these sorts of rulings spit in the face of all AT participants.

Enforce your own rules, please.
Talia Soucu
Monkeys Violating the Heavenly Temple
#103 - 2015-08-16 16:58:43 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Talia Soucu wrote:
CCP Logibro wrote:
Both teams were contacted before the ruling was made (Together We Solo was informed, but did not respond before the ruling was made public). Neither team has contested the ruling or otherwise asked us to review our decision, so the original decision stands.



That's not terribly important because the repercussions don't affect just those teams. Right now, there's no reason for any team to think that if they bring an illegal advantage (e.g. pirate implants, T2 drones), they'll get punished or that the advantage will be removed.

Except that if teams do try to gain an unfair advantage and CCP does spot it, they'll be punished.


Sure, if they spot it at the time. So far, they've failed to spot 2 instances of rule breaking and they've given no punishment after the fact in either case.

There should be no question that fielding something against the rules is a bad strategy, either because CCP will see it and remove it or, if they don't see it during the match, you'll get punished after the fact. There's no assurance of that right now.
Princess Bride
Corripe Cervisiam Trade Consortium
#104 - 2015-08-16 18:11:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Princess Bride
I have no problem with how this was handled. The tournament is an analogue for a sporting event. Mistakes are made all the time at sporting events. Reversals of game outcomes because of referee mistakes is pretty much unheard of. Same with replaying matches. It's better to just carry on with the tournament, learn from mistakes, improve the tools, and maybe reimburse the ships than try to retroactively "make it right" or "punish" players who probably accidentally warped at 100 instead of 50.

It's a game inside a game, and the show must go on. Everyone trolling CCP on this issue with slippery slope fallacies should just let it go.

http://eveprincessbride.wordpress.com/

Tallardar
Doomheim
#105 - 2015-08-16 18:42:46 UTC
Princess Bride wrote:
I have no problem with how this was handled. The tournament is an analogue for a sporting event. Mistakes are made all the time at sporting events. Reversals of game outcomes because of referee mistakes is pretty much unheard of. Same with replaying matches. It's better to just carry on with the tournament, learn from mistakes, improve the tools, and maybe reimburse the ships than try to retroactively "make it right" or "punish" players who probably accidentally warped at 100 instead of 50.

It's a game inside a game, and the show must go on. Everyone trolling CCP on this issue with slippery slope fallacies should just let it go.


Except, you know, there are examples in real sports where matches are reversed because of a blatantly bad referee failure that gives one side an advantage arbitrarily.

If you think people are annoyed that CCP gave an advantage to a team, which arguably let them win, and then said "yeah but its nbd because no one noticed" is trolling then you have a very unique way of defining that term.
Princess Bride
Corripe Cervisiam Trade Consortium
#106 - 2015-08-16 18:57:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Princess Bride
Tallardar wrote:


Except, you know, there are examples in real sports where matches are reversed because of a blatantly bad referee failure that gives one side an advantage arbitrarily.


Not really. Reversing a match based on a referee call is a *****-ass move, and a very rare one (in the US at least). If you have a few links to sports stories backing up your assertion I'd love to see them.

Quote:

If you think people are annoyed that CCP gave an advantage to a team, which arguably let them win, and then said "yeah but its nbd because no one noticed" is trolling then you have a very unique way of defining that term.


Being annoyed is one thing, but what I'm talking about are the ridiculous slippery slope doom-and-gloom statements about "what this means" for the "reputation and dignity" of the tournament, etc. Be annoyed. But CCP is handling this in a perfectly reasonable manner given the context and actual facts. Saying it is a precursor to teams being allowed to get away with intentional and blatant cheating is a stretch.

http://eveprincessbride.wordpress.com/

Desiderya
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#107 - 2015-08-16 21:04:41 UTC
In the analogy of sporting matches one can also safely assume that reorganising and rehosting/running them costs much more (in time and money) than a rematch in this game.
Seeing how polarizing this particular match/ruling was part of me thinks this would automatically make it a great event to watch. ;)

Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise.

Tallardar
Doomheim
#108 - 2015-08-16 23:00:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Tallardar
Princess Bride wrote:


Not really. Reversing a match based on a referee call is a *****-ass move, and a very rare one (in the US at least). If you have a few links to sports stories backing up your assertion I'd love to see them.


There are numerous examples of sports overruling the result of a match.

Example of a referee's poor decision being overturned:

http://www.mmafighting.com/2015/3/26/8295181/brazilian-commission-leandro-silva-vs-drew-dober-overturned-ruled-a

Example of judges decision being overturned:

http://espn.go.com/boxing/story/_/id/7128840/bernard-hopkins-gets-title-back-decision-overturned-technical-draw

Example of a match that was ruled in one side's favor being overturned after it was revealed one or both parties used illegal substances:

http://www.mmamania.com/2015/2/6/7992549/no-contest-anderson-silvas-victory-over-nick-diaz-at-ufc-183

Those are some preliminary examples of how you can overturn a referees call after a match occurs. There's also the challenge system within the NFL that allows one side to question a referee's decision during the game.

Also as someone said above, this is a digital game and re-doing the match isn't as difficult as re-doing a real world sports match. To compare the two in that regard is pretty silly.

Quote:
But CCP is handling this in a perfectly reasonable manner given the context and actual facts.


A team was given an unfair advantage and won as a result. The event organizers then said, in response to that issue being pointed out, "the result stands as neither we nor the other team said anything about it before the match started."

The GC Vigilant has a 50km lock range (1) and started the match at 0km, as did the rest of his team (2). The rules for the tournament state that "once word is given, teams warp in to the arena beacon specified, at a range of their choosing, up to a maximum of 50 km." (3). It's pretty clear GC's team, due to the killmails, were designed around a closer range fight that doesn't account for 50km extra warp in range because a referee failed to do the job they were assigned to do. In essence, extra time was given for the TWS setup to apply damage that the 50km range would not have allowed for since GC had to burn longer to get to their targets.

So, given the context and facts of the match, the fittings used, and the unenforced rules, it's pretty simple to see how CCP's decision isn't that logical whatsoever. What's equally comical after this comment by CCP is that they're "considering" giving GC a reward of some sort for being screwed by referees not able to do their job, and CCP deciding that the match was a loss despite the unfair advantage given by their officials.

1 - https://zkillboard.com/kill/48486008/)
2 - https://null-sec.com/atxiii/#/replay/13/0
3 - http://community.eveonline.com/community/alliance-tournament/rules/
Officer Nyota Uhura
#109 - 2015-08-17 00:08:42 UTC
Tallardar wrote:

Wall of text


Lol given how you guys were sent back to school today, it looks like you're much better in forum posting than pvp.
Tallardar
Doomheim
#110 - 2015-08-17 02:29:12 UTC
Imagine that, a new player alliance not amazing at the AT. Sick burn brah.
Ima GoodGirl
Aria Shi's Wasted ISK
#111 - 2015-08-17 03:24:48 UTC
Officer Nyota Uhura wrote:
Tallardar wrote:

Wall of text


Lol given how you guys were sent back to school today, it looks like you're much better in forum posting than pvp.

Hahaha, so funny when people who can't pvp complain about others forum posting instead of pvping.

You're an idiot:

https://zkillboard.com/character/91167579/
Officer Nyota Uhura
#112 - 2015-08-17 07:36:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Officer Nyota Uhura
duh
Officer Nyota Uhura
#113 - 2015-08-17 07:37:50 UTC
Officer Nyota Uhura wrote:

Well, I gave them a good fight in my baws armor-and-hull-remorepping insta-warping cloaky cyno crusader. Would have brought that to AT13 too.
maCH'EttE
Perkone
Caldari State
#114 - 2015-08-17 17:19:35 UTC
OFF WITH THEIR HEADS.
The rules are there for a reason, whether it was done on purpuse or not, whether one team gained a advantage or not. The rules are their for a reason. If the rules were broken, no matter who it is, action must be taken.
Not taking action, just f'en devalues of the rules, the tournament, the effort of all the refs, players, watchers, commenters.
OFF WITH THEIR HEADS.
sorry trans.
Carrie-Anne Moss
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#115 - 2015-08-17 18:33:27 UTC
If both teams "agree" to warp in at 100 next week, is that kosher? As long as they "both agree"

What if both teams agree to have 5% implants or extra remote reps?

I mean if the teams "both agree" on the rules for the match i guess its okay right?
Karle Tabot
Wormlife Freeport Operations
Wormlife
#116 - 2015-08-17 18:43:02 UTC
I really enjoy these matches, and greatly appreciate all you guys do to provide it. In fact I was disappointed that you shortened it this year. But oh well, I will take what you graciously provide, and be thankful.


But sorry CCP, I have to challenge you on this. I have no dog in this fight and no ISK bet on any of the fights to this point. I do not know any of the people, teams or entities involved.

This is a game where there is rampant scamming, cheating, lying, etc. I know there is the majority that just love that, and its part of the game. But I thought Alliance Tournament rules were an exception. Apparently, they are not.

It really now seems there are not even any Alliance Tournament rules. All there are at most is whatever rule the highest ranking official at the time in issue says is the rule, and then only so long as he or she remains in charge and does not change his or her mind.

This type thing is not good for the game or any of the parties involved in the long run, and as hard as it is to deal with it in the proper way of either requiring a rematch, or declaring the violator the loser, that is the only way not to taint the whole Tournament. I think it was a simple mistake, and I make mistakes every day. I hope I do not compound them though, as is being done by this current stance on violation of the rules.
Desert Ice78
Gryphons of the Western Wind
#117 - 2015-08-17 19:47:49 UTC
la la la can't hear you....

I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg

CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused.

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#118 - 2015-08-17 22:21:29 UTC
Tallardar wrote:

Quote:
But CCP is handling this in a perfectly reasonable manner given the context and actual facts.


A team was given an unfair advantage and won as a result. The event organizers then said, in response to that issue being pointed out, "the result stands as neither we nor the other team said anything about it before the match started."

The GC Vigilant has a 50km lock range (1) and started the match at 0km, as did the rest of his team (2). The rules for the tournament state that "once word is given, teams warp in to the arena beacon specified, at a range of their choosing, up to a maximum of 50 km." (3). It's pretty clear GC's team, due to the killmails, were designed around a closer range fight that doesn't account for 50km extra warp in range because a referee failed to do the job they were assigned to do. In essence, extra time was given for the TWS setup to apply damage that the 50km range would not have allowed for since GC had to burn longer to get to their targets.

So, given the context and facts of the match, the fittings used, and the unenforced rules, it's pretty simple to see how CCP's decision isn't that logical whatsoever. What's equally comical after this comment by CCP is that they're "considering" giving GC a reward of some sort for being screwed by referees not able to do their job, and CCP deciding that the match was a loss despite the unfair advantage given by their officials.

1 - https://zkillboard.com/kill/48486008/)
2 - https://null-sec.com/atxiii/#/replay/13/0
3 - http://community.eveonline.com/community/alliance-tournament/rules/


Tallardar, I picking on you because your post so clearly shows a thorough lack of understanding of the fight. Don't feel bad about it though, as there are a shitload of Moron's QQ about the results without looking or understanding the situation. You all really should look at the advantage provided within context of that particular match.

If I had to guess at how the fight played out, rather than look at the replay from Null-sec.com, I'd probably assume your assessment of the context was correct. But you obviously did not pay very close attention to that replay, because the extra distance made very little change in the match.

To summarize the match:

GC rushed the TWS comp off the bat, primarying a Widow. TWS first primaried the Rook, which the GC onieros kept alive just fine. TWS then primaried the Onieros, and that GC ship tanked the incoming dps just fine. Meanwhile, GC moved all their DPS ships to their optimal ranges and slowly ground through thea TWS Widow, killing it and the Ibis about 2 minutes into the fight. GC then took some time splitting damage between the RS and the basi for about 15 seconds, but soon thereafter focused almost all their offense on the Basilisk by 2:20 into the fight. Shortly before TWS lost their Widow, they swapped damage to the Geddon, and attempted unsuccessfully to kill it through Onieros reps. At about 3 minutes into the fight, GC was still trying to kill the Basi (who may have been bait tanking) while TWS swapped damage to the GC blackbird. The blackbird didn't receive reps until already in very low armor, despite being right next to the Geddon who was receiving reps at the time instead. The GC Blackbird died at 3:40 seconds into the fight, at which time GC realized the futility of attacking the Basi and swapped all dps to a TWS SNI. TWS swapped back to the Geddon for 30 seconds, and suddenly swapped targets to the Navy Exeq. The Navy Exeq caught some reps, but not enough to save it dying 4:55s into the match. TWS then primaried the Vigilant, who died 40 seconds later having received no reps support at all. Meanwhile, GC was having moderate success grinding through the SNI's tank, especially when the Rook got off on the occasional successful jam on the TWS Basi. When the Vigilant when down the Basi also became unjammed, which was a serendipitous timing that allowed the Basi to save the SNI. Despite that, GC almost killed the SNI again when another successful jam took out the Basi reps, TWS killed the rook after the vigilant and safely won the match thereafter.

So, why did GC lose?

Frankly, the GC Onieros pilot did not manage his RR ideally, often not focusing his repping power on his primaried fleetmate. The Oni reps often didn't land on the BB or Navy Exeq unil hulls are in deep armor, and he never bothered to rep the Vigilant or Rook. Realize, those hulls all have historically weak armor resists profiles, meaning they'd be extra squishy and harder to save.

So why did the warp in not matter?
1.) By the time TWS applied its damage to a GC target that mattered (i.e.the blackbird at about 3 minutes in), GC had full control of their positioning. That's enough time for an Onieros to slowboat 50 km's, which is within medium repper range, let alone the 75 km's rep range of large reppers.

2.) At the time of their first loss, TWS had a completely stable presence on field, with the basilisk having tanked the entire GC team for almost 80 seconds with no success.

Their failure to kill another ship after the Widow & Ibis had everything to do with their choice in applying their damage and EWAR, and NOTHING to do with the warp in ranges or the time lost burning in to apply DPS. It is simply wrong to say the advantage TWS had from a 100 km warp in resulted in them winning the match.

What I want to know, is how could the match have started without GC pointing out the inappropriate warp in range? That makes no sense to me! Of all the people on field, it should have been most obvious to them, and I really don't understand why no one said something in local during the 60s prior to the match.
Callduron
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#119 - 2015-08-17 23:08:38 UTC
I'm very much a pragmatist.

Rescheduling an extra game into an already furious schedule seems too much hassle to be dealing with in an already packed weekend.

So I think the realististic options are:

1) Let the result stand (Because the losing and cheated against party didn't object to this).

2) Disqualify the team that won, awarding the result to the other side.

My experience as a new captain is that it's just so easy to **** things up. I've fleet warped to the wrong range before in our practice matches or we've all individually warped and people have come to the wrong range.

Brave was within a hair of getting penalised in our first match. I had set up my overview to be laser-focused on arena combat and when I was asked to warp us in I realised I didn't have a tab with the beacons on it. I had to go to my tab with everything on it, right click, remove moons from overview, right click, remove belts, frantically scanning to see if I could see the beacon yet, I finally spotted it and warped us just as a rather impatient CCP Mimic was threatening to warp us at zero.

So I'm inclined to be sympathetic towards the captain who made the mistake as long as the losing team does not object. If they do object, it should be a disqualification, not a rematch.

If it were my team in that situation I'd be honest about whether it affected the result, discussing it with my squad and if we felt it made no different we wouldn't try to game a win by rules lawyering.

I write http://stabbedup.blogspot.co.uk/

I post on reddit as /u/callduron.

Soul-on-Ice
Task Force 20
SE7EN-SINS
#120 - 2015-08-18 04:44:30 UTC
so the losing team didn't know the rules either? ..didnt say anything before the countdown finished and the match started?

if you dont say something before the match starts what do you expect?