These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

Shouldn't the semi-finalists of AT9 get automatically be qualified for AT10?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tyzzara
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#21 - 2012-05-15 07:58:27 UTC
/me sighs

Having a rule that essentially allows CCP to pick and choose teams at their leisure sucks.

However, it is a necessary evil. The challenge to create written rules which would address AT9 problems is not realistic. Unless they are going to single people out and/or create a gridlock mess of fine print to be interpreted by anyone with an opinion.


v0v

Nobody wants to see two 'friends' meet up for the final match and then count seconds while watching the clock. That match sucked. Bad. (attempting to ensure no repeat of AT9 final is damn difficult here folks due to the level of meta-gaming, etc...)

The way they are doing it 'clean-slate' is the only choice out of several poor options to choose from.

I think CCP is handling it as well as can be expected.

/me waves hand at others

Continue...

AFK Time Zone
Tobiaz
Spacerats
#22 - 2012-05-15 08:05:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Tobiaz
Even though the finals sucked, all teams that reached in the semi-finals fought hard to get there, and deserved to be one of the initial 64 to kick off the tournament. They are by no means at all 'poor teams to choose from' and there's absolutely no guarantee they will end up in the same position , where they can choose to throw the game as last year.

Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!
Zowie Powers
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2012-05-15 12:47:25 UTC
I suppose that I too had better disregard all of the unprecedented quality matches last year's participants produced simply because one of the matches turned out to be a farce.

I thought I was happy accepting all the good stuff that AT9 brought, but I'm reading here that I am supposed to be enraged to the point of irrationality.

I will now blindly follow suit, absolved of all responsibility for my own thoughts.

ATX: The best of the rest.
Baellis
M.E.T.B
#24 - 2012-05-15 14:35:47 UTC
i watch the alliance tournaments every year and i love watching i wish my alliance was big enough and had enough money to actual participate in the tournament. I don't like seeing teams manipulate the point system like last year it bugged me this is a competition if u did that in a tournament for any other game they would DQ both teams and laugh at the tears. also hated the finals last year, watched as the other team stopped shooting and got killed off one by one. honestly i like the new changes to the rules it looks like its going to be a lot more fun to watch this year.

i don't feel sympathy for alliances being punished for last years shenanigans. i just want to watch something fun and dream about the day i get to be a part of it. GL with ATX guys put on a good show
sevyn nine
Cutting Edge Incorporated
#25 - 2012-05-15 15:47:16 UTC
Humphrey Goff wrote:
Matze reloaded wrote:

Nevertheless this change of rules is definitely not fair towards Darkside and Razor, especially since this was a promised reward from AT IX.


I have no grudge, but you do know that Razor was one of the teams doing the bracket manipulation last year right?


Last year Razor was in a horrible position. We knew that, in a match after ours, Wild Boars and Circle-of-Two were going to throw the match in order to help Wild Boars continue. Razor handily beat Wild Boars in a previous match. Razor had to fight Outbreak, but it was mathematically impossible for us to do well enough to overcome the following thrown match. Our only options were to either throw our match, or fight it out and regardless of the outcome, not continue in the tournament. There was a lot of internal debate (including intially refusing to throw our match), but in the end I decided that our main goal was to progress through the tourney and I needed to do whatever it took. Our hand was forced, and it sucked.
Humphrey Goff
The Brown Hole
#26 - 2012-05-15 18:24:41 UTC
sevyn nine wrote:
Humphrey Goff wrote:

I have no grudge, but you do know that Razor was one of the teams doing the bracket manipulation last year right?


....

Our hand was forced, and it sucked.


Thanks for all the letters, simple yes would have been sufficient.
sevyn nine
Cutting Edge Incorporated
#27 - 2012-05-15 23:46:28 UTC
Humphrey Goff wrote:
sevyn nine wrote:
Humphrey Goff wrote:

I have no grudge, but you do know that Razor was one of the teams doing the bracket manipulation last year right?


....

Our hand was forced, and it sucked.


Thanks for all the letters, simple yes would have been sufficient.


Well, just putting it into context for those that weren't there.
Cannery Canoule
War is Bliss
#28 - 2012-05-16 15:41:22 UTC
sevyn nine wrote:
Humphrey Goff wrote:
Matze reloaded wrote:

Nevertheless this change of rules is definitely not fair towards Darkside and Razor, especially since this was a promised reward from AT IX.


I have no grudge, but you do know that Razor was one of the teams doing the bracket manipulation last year right?


Last year Razor was in a horrible position. We knew that, in a match after ours, Wild Boars and Circle-of-Two were going to throw the match in order to help Wild Boars continue. Razor handily beat Wild Boars in a previous match. Razor had to fight Outbreak, but it was mathematically impossible for us to do well enough to overcome the following thrown match. Our only options were to either throw our match, or fight it out and regardless of the outcome, not continue in the tournament. There was a lot of internal debate (including intially refusing to throw our match), but in the end I decided that our main goal was to progress through the tourney and I needed to do whatever it took. Our hand was forced, and it sucked.


How does having to beat 0utbreak with a 90 point team, which is what they let you do, equate to a mathematically impossible situation?

You could've fielded 90 points and beat Outbreak without an agreement but since that would've been very difficult to do you accepted their offer. You simply did what you had to in order to give your team the highest chance of advancing. There's no shame in this, but you shouldn't confuse the facts to make your alliance appear to be white knights of honour who had no choice in the matter when you did have a choice.

The funny thing is all the people who take the moral high ground would probably jump at any opportunity that significantly increases their chances in the tournament (within the rules ofc). So you really shouldn't feel uncomfortable by your actions.
sevyn nine
Cutting Edge Incorporated
#29 - 2012-05-17 20:28:45 UTC
Cannery Canoule wrote:
sevyn nine wrote:
Humphrey Goff wrote:
Matze reloaded wrote:

Nevertheless this change of rules is definitely not fair towards Darkside and Razor, especially since this was a promised reward from AT IX.


I have no grudge, but you do know that Razor was one of the teams doing the bracket manipulation last year right?


Last year Razor was in a horrible position. We knew that, in a match after ours, Wild Boars and Circle-of-Two were going to throw the match in order to help Wild Boars continue. Razor handily beat Wild Boars in a previous match. Razor had to fight Outbreak, but it was mathematically impossible for us to do well enough to overcome the following thrown match. Our only options were to either throw our match, or fight it out and regardless of the outcome, not continue in the tournament. There was a lot of internal debate (including intially refusing to throw our match), but in the end I decided that our main goal was to progress through the tourney and I needed to do whatever it took. Our hand was forced, and it sucked.


How does having to beat 0utbreak with a 90 point team, which is what they let you do, equate to a mathematically impossible situation?

You could've fielded 90 points and beat Outbreak without an agreement but since that would've been very difficult to do you accepted their offer. You simply did what you had to in order to give your team the highest chance of advancing. There's no shame in this, but you shouldn't confuse the facts to make your alliance appear to be white knights of honour who had no choice in the matter when you did have a choice.

The funny thing is all the people who take the moral high ground would probably jump at any opportunity that significantly increases their chances in the tournament (within the rules ofc). So you really shouldn't feel uncomfortable by your actions.


I wouldn't expect you to understand, but there comes a point to where your chances of you winning are close enough to 0 that you need to explore other possibilities.

I'm not sure why I'm wasting the time explaining this to you. Hopefully you can put your expertise into action and lead your tourney team to glory. Good luck in the tourney this year!
Humphrey Goff
The Brown Hole
#30 - 2012-05-17 21:11:18 UTC
sevyn nine wrote:

I wouldn't expect you to understand, but there comes a point to where your chances of you winning are close enough to 0 that you need to explore other possibilities.


How does that make you more valiant than Wild Boars/CO2?
sevyn nine
Cutting Edge Incorporated
#31 - 2012-05-18 01:28:59 UTC
Humphrey Goff wrote:
sevyn nine wrote:

I wouldn't expect you to understand, but there comes a point to where your chances of you winning are close enough to 0 that you need to explore other possibilities.


How does that make you more valiant than Wild Boars/CO2?


We wouldn't have had to do it if they wouldn't have planned on doing it. Our actions were a response to their metagaming. If CCP had clamped down on metagaming last year, we wouldn't have had to do it. This was alrealy alluded to in previous posts. They forced our hand. Reading comprehension FTW. Again, good luck with your team this year. I'm not biting on any more of your trolling.
Killer Gandry
The Concilium Enterprises
#32 - 2012-05-18 05:42:45 UTC
CCP Sreegs wrote:

Read the quoted post where I quote the person saying it's unfair which is what I was responding to, thus the quote. We disagree that it's stupid. I apologize that the change negatively impacts you but the bottom line is that it became quite apparent that giving people the entry wasn't in any way guaranteeing quality matches which was the purpose of the rule.

I'm sure we'll have a discussion about it again next year dependent on how things go.


May I ask a simple question?

How does "selling" spots in the tournament guarantee quality matches?
I fail to see the corrolation there. Biggest wallet means best team?

Then why even bother with the tournament and just auction off 1st, 2nd and 3rd place and be done with it.
Humphrey Goff
The Brown Hole
#33 - 2012-05-18 06:42:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Humphrey Goff
I wish all teams the best for AT 10.

See you on the battlefield Pirate
Okinata
State War Academy
Caldari State
#34 - 2012-05-25 00:38:07 UTC
CCP Sreegs wrote:
the bottom line is that it became quite apparent that giving people the entry wasn't in any way guaranteeing quality matches which was the purpose of the rule.


But drawing names out of a hat is "guaranteeing quality matches"?
LooknSee
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#35 - 2012-05-25 00:44:52 UTC
Okinata wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:
the bottom line is that it became quite apparent that giving people the entry wasn't in any way guaranteeing quality matches which was the purpose of the rule.


But drawing names out of a hat is "guaranteeing quality matches"?


No, but it's unambiguously fair. Not sure how anyone can argue that a system wherein all teams have an equal chance of participation is somehow unfair.
Okinata
State War Academy
Caldari State
#36 - 2012-05-25 00:48:11 UTC
LooknSee wrote:
Okinata wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:
the bottom line is that it became quite apparent that giving people the entry wasn't in any way guaranteeing quality matches which was the purpose of the rule.


But drawing names out of a hat is "guaranteeing quality matches"?


No, but it's unambiguously fair. Not sure how anyone can argue that a system wherein all teams have an equal chance of participation is somehow unfair.


Where did I mention fairness? I think random is 100% fair, but fair was not the issue I was addressing. I was writing about quality matches.
LooknSee
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#37 - 2012-05-25 00:51:54 UTC
Okinata wrote:
Where did I mention fairness? I think random is 100% fair, but fair was not the issue I was addressing. I was writing about quality matches.


If guaranteeing the top 4 teams from the previous year didn't guarantee quality matches I'm not sure how you propose to make it happen.

I've been seeing a lot of posts about better teams supposedly producing better matches, but that's not strictly true. Good matches come from having teams of relatively equal ability play against one another, their absolute level of skill is irrelevant.
Ophelia Aivoras
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#38 - 2012-05-25 00:57:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Ophelia Aivoras
LooknSee wrote:
Good matches come from having teams of relatively equal ability play against one another, their absolute level of skill is irrelevant.


yup
paralympics is what awaits us this yearLol
well mostly
LooknSee
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#39 - 2012-05-25 01:03:35 UTC
Ophelia Aivoras wrote:
yup
paralympics is what awaits us this yearLol
well mostly


lol

Ironically, I would actually rather watch the special olympics than the waste of time I saw last year.
Okinata
State War Academy
Caldari State
#40 - 2012-05-25 01:33:23 UTC
LooknSee wrote:
Okinata wrote:
Where did I mention fairness? I think random is 100% fair, but fair was not the issue I was addressing. I was writing about quality matches.


If guaranteeing the top 4 teams from the previous year didn't guarantee quality matches I'm not sure how you propose to make it happen.

I've been seeing a lot of posts about better teams supposedly producing better matches, but that's not strictly true. Good matches come from having teams of relatively equal ability play against one another, their absolute level of skill is irrelevant.


I don't think you understand what I was getting at. They said grandfathering the previous year's top four teams was no promise of good matches. I tried to point out (in the form of a sarcastic question) that names in a hat does not promise good matches. You then start on some fairness thing, which was never mentioned, followed by a statement agreeing with my original intentions- that the current system is in no way designed for good matches over allowing the already proven top four teams into the starting round.
Previous page123Next page