These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Open letter to CCP and the community regarding HYDRA and OB ban from ATX

First post First post
Author
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#61 - 2012-05-25 10:55:42 UTC
banning both teams for f*cked up AT IX finals is a proper decision.
props CCP
Halarach
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#62 - 2012-05-25 10:57:02 UTC
Congratulations on making this year's AT much less interresting than what it could be CCP.

Hubris has already damaged you a lot as a company, thought you learned the lesson, was wrong.

Time Funnel
Just a side dish
Outspoken Alliance
#63 - 2012-05-25 11:03:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Time Funnel
Lemster wrote:
Leeloo Malaquin wrote:

- HYDRA and OB are not a single entity. They are 2 different entities on TQ with their own history. CCP knows this very well. We worked together closely in AT9 but with the new rules we were only planning to test together(unless told we can't do it) before the tournament begins.


If you watch last years final carefully I think you'll find that for tournament purposes you are one entity.

+1 CCP


From someone who has watched every match from last year at least 6 times and gone over the killboards for most of them, I concur that for the purposes of blatantly stealing your setups you are one team.

We have stolen/analyzed pretty much every setup/match you have fielded/been in./. There are really no differences between the two teams. You did that Vindicator thing at the end almost as comedy. My complements on your metagaming, it was almost "as you say" too good.

My only comment is that if you would have bashed each others faces in and the winners made hip thrusting motions at the crowd of fans, then you are providing the sort of online tournament entertainment that people expect.

When you stop shooting half way through a match in the finals in a Starcraft Tournament... well I think you see my point.
Spark's
Infinite Regress.
#64 - 2012-05-25 11:06:17 UTC
Halarach wrote:
Congratulations on making this year's AT much less interresting than what it could be CCP.

Hubris has already damaged you a lot as a company, thought you learned the lesson, was wrong.



Your opinion of course right? I think it's made this years AT much more interesting as the outcome looks far different. Who is going to win? We find out soon!

Terra Hawks Recruting: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2397675#post2397675 Public Channel: Hawks Pub

xo3e
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#65 - 2012-05-25 11:12:03 UTC
Quote:
Who is going to win? We find out soon!


pandemic legion or pandemic legion ?

or maybe pandemic legion?


so entertaining

Signature removed. Navigator

Musician
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#66 - 2012-05-25 11:28:03 UTC
Halarach wrote:
Congratulations on making this year's AT much less interresting than what it could be CCP.

Hubris has already damaged you a lot as a company, thought you learned the lesson, was wrong.



This pretty much sums it up. You have removed the best... what is now left?

Rhatar Khurin
Doomheim
#67 - 2012-05-25 11:34:29 UTC
Musician wrote:
Halarach wrote:
Congratulations on making this year's AT much less interresting than what it could be CCP.

Hubris has already damaged you a lot as a company, thought you learned the lesson, was wrong.



This pretty much sums it up. You have removed the best... what is now left?



I dont know if you watched last years AT9, but i dont think i even saw a close fight in it.. Unlike previous ones with a couple of ships at the end pumping away.. none of that..

AT9 was the worst one yet :(
Mirrodin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#68 - 2012-05-25 11:36:19 UTC
ScoRpS wrote:
We had neither 0utbreak or Hydra on the roster. We didn't get picked and as such we never had either team a secured spot in the tournament. So technically no we didnt but our intentions were to field both teams.


Anyone else see this?

"OUR intentions were to field BOTH teams"

Coming from one person, talking about them fielding both teams. It is obvious, the mindset going on here.
Lemster
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#69 - 2012-05-25 11:37:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Lemster
Musician wrote:
Halarach wrote:
Congratulations on making this year's AT much less interresting than what it could be CCP.

Hubris has already damaged you a lot as a company, thought you learned the lesson, was wrong.



This pretty much sums it up. You have removed the best... what is now left?



Have a look at last years final. I think you'll agree neither team looks particularly good at pvp, let alone the best.

I suppose you could call last years final interesting, but I think it's a different kind of interesting, possibly involving some pvp, which people are looking for from the tourney.
Ciar Meara
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#70 - 2012-05-25 11:51:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Ciar Meara
Leeloo Malaquin wrote:


The reason Sreegs gave for excluding HYDRA and OB was that he thinks HYDRA and OB are a "single entity" who are "practicing together in a single corporation on the test server in a single wormhole" while "masquerading as two units".


Followed by:

Leeloo Malaquin wrote:

- Reason we joined the same corp in the TEST server was because of wormhole logistics. No one considered that a logistic technicality in the TEST server would suddenly be bannable when training together was not. And I don't understand Raivis comments when he says we made a mistake doing it, as we had been very open with CCP and told them we would practice together unless being told that we can't.


Oh please, if you really want to train on the testserver that badly its not hard to get two or even twohundred freighters into one WH. 5 man corps can do that.


Leeloo Malaquin wrote:

- This leads me to wonder what Sreegs means when he talks about HYDRA and OB "masquerading as two units". We told them our intentions regarding the tournament, we told them we practice with each other, they know we are separate unit on TQ etc. I simply don't see what he is referring to.


See last year. See above. See logic. The reason the rules where changed where your actions, then you done and went and done it again...doesn't take a genius to figure out why you got scrapped.

You where ONE entity, training together intermingled in a wormhole, it doesn't matter you where on the testserver. And to top it all off you showed everybody just what would happen if another Outbreak/Hydra final would occur last year.

Halarach wrote:
Congratulations on making this year's AT much less interresting than what it could be CCP.

Hubris has already damaged you a lot as a company, thought you learned the lesson, was wrong.



Only hubris here was knowing they where scirting the rules and doing it anyway. If you thought that the final of last years tourny was interesting, guess again.

There are are always suprise alliances and wins and losses at AT's. This time the cutting begins early. I think it might be more interesting now with the outbreak/hydra team cut out so we don't see the same thing twice.

- [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow]

Killer Gandry
The Concilium Enterprises
#71 - 2012-05-25 11:52:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Killer Gandry
And there I was thinking they wanted to make ATX more interesting.

Only achievement: More drama and more selling out.
Just quit with the crap called AT.

You ****** up when you let metagaming to to where it is now and you laugh about it, but as soon as it doesn't suit your arses you start to become Nay sayers.

You brought all the crap on yourselves CCP. Your ignorance knows no boundries.

Hydra get's told by one GM they can train together as one entity and as soon as they do you take out another rule and just blatantly ignore the GM's reply to it so you eventually can get your revenge for AT9.

But that what happened at AT9 was a product of your own baby is just another thing you just ignore.
It is you who allow even worse metagaming for everything else and then expect people to behave within narrow boundries for 1 event.

No CCP. you ****** up and you don't even have the balls nor the common sense to admit it.
MadbaM
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#72 - 2012-05-25 11:56:03 UTC

OK so I'v skim read this thread and forgive me if I'm going to ask a question that's already been answered.

I know there argument is that there two individual teams and this doesn't really apply to there argument, but they have been banned under Rule 5. To ensure that all Alliances get a fair opportunity to participate we will be checking on team entries and will disqualify teams who we consider to be 'B' or 'C' teams for bigger Alliances.

If they have banned both teams who is the supposed 'A' team? because as far as I can see they shouldn't have banned both only the B or C entry's.

I'm sure you'l let me know if I'm wrong on this.
xo3e
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#73 - 2012-05-25 12:08:39 UTC
Quote:
I think people are vastly overestimating us.

We're having too much fun in DayZ to care much about the tournament lately :3


so u say that CCP accidentally kicked only alliances that took AT10 seriously ? :333333

thats nice

Signature removed. Navigator

Raimo
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#74 - 2012-05-25 12:10:50 UTC
Spyker Slater wrote:
Let me start by saying I was very mad after the final last year. But I think maybe a compromise CCP could do is to let them compete as one alliance as is the case with RvB?


This would be a decent compromise, to forcibly join last years "one team" as with the precedent they've now set with RvB.

Just cutting both alliances out of the tourney because of their grudge about "BAD TV" last year doesn't make the AT Team look that good as people or representatives of their company...


MadbaM wrote:

OK so I'v skim read this thread and forgive me if I'm going to ask a question that's already been answered.

I know there argument is that there two individual teams and this doesn't really apply to there argument, but they have been banned under Rule 5. To ensure that all Alliances get a fair opportunity to participate we will be checking on team entries and will disqualify teams who we consider to be 'B' or 'C' teams for bigger Alliances.

If they have banned both teams who is the supposed 'A' team? because as far as I can see they shouldn't have banned both only the B or C entry's.

I'm sure you'l let me know if I'm wrong on this.



And yeah I too am confused about this
Officer Nyota Uhura
#75 - 2012-05-25 12:19:32 UTC
Mirrodin wrote:
ScoRpS wrote:
We had neither 0utbreak or Hydra on the roster. We didn't get picked and as such we never had either team a secured spot in the tournament. So technically no we didnt but our intentions were to field both teams.


Anyone else see this?

"OUR intentions were to field BOTH teams"

Coming from one person, talking about them fielding both teams. It is obvious, the mindset going on here.


This quote indeed sums it up - it was noted, though, already on the first page:

MrWhitei God wrote:
ScoRpS wrote:
We had neither 0utbreak or Hydra on the roster. We didn't get picked and as such we never had either team a secured spot in the tournament. So technically no we didnt but our intentions were to field both teams.


Thats alot of "We" for two separate entities

ScoRpS
Moist Wanted.
OnlyFleets.
#76 - 2012-05-25 12:27:04 UTC
Officer Nyota Uhura wrote:
Mirrodin wrote:
ScoRpS wrote:
We had neither 0utbreak or Hydra on the roster. We didn't get picked and as such we never had either team a secured spot in the tournament. So technically no we didnt but our intentions were to field both teams.


Anyone else see this?

"OUR intentions were to field BOTH teams"

Coming from one person, talking about them fielding both teams. It is obvious, the mindset going on here.


This quote indeed sums it up - it was noted, though, already on the first page:

MrWhitei God wrote:
ScoRpS wrote:
We had neither 0utbreak or Hydra on the roster. We didn't get picked and as such we never had either team a secured spot in the tournament. So technically no we didnt but our intentions were to field both teams.


Thats alot of "We" for two separate entities



Well I am part of a team that consisted of some 20 0utbreak members. So yes its a "we" I hope I have explained it ok as I did not intend to enter the tourney on my own as a Rambo. Although I understand the Hydra implication its not warranted here.
Nik Domar
Acerbus Vindictum
TRUTH. HONOUR. LIGHT.
#77 - 2012-05-25 12:31:00 UTC
I do not have first hand information what has actually happened and done, so I have to rely on information provided by both Hydra and Outbreak and of course CCP Sreegs.

As confirmed by CCP, one of the Senior Game Masters replied to petition asking how both Hydra/Outbreak could train together on test server. Later this was said being a mistake by Game Master team and being investigated

Thus Hydra Reloaded and Outbreak started to train with the best knowledge they had on the rules. Unless there are other evidence that both Hydra Reloaded team and Outbreak teams have broken any other rules, in my opinion the flawed answer of the game master mislead the leaders of both teams to assume they were safe to train as they were planning to do.

Lack of proper communication has always been the greatest sin of CCP. In this, case it caused removal of two teams that had tried to contact CCP without any clear answer. In this case, there should have been action first to clear out the flawed answer provided by Senior GM and let Hydra and Outbreak make new training method to allow them continue to train in allowed way. Straight removal of team because of mistake done by Game Master is wrong.

In support of Leeloo Malaquin and Hydra Reloaded
Nik Domar
AV/Stealth Wear Inc.
Fanfest 2012 PvP Tournament winner with Team Hydra Reloaded. "The hobo"
Officer Nyota Uhura
#78 - 2012-05-25 12:33:20 UTC
Raimo wrote:
MadbaM wrote:

If they have banned both teams who is the supposed 'A' team? because as far as I can see they shouldn't have banned both only the B or C entry's.

And yeah I too am confused about this


Maybe I can help you, Raimo and MadbaM, to be less confused (emphasis in the quote below is mine):

CCP Loxy wrote:
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.

http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=28644
Raivi
State War Academy
Caldari State
#79 - 2012-05-25 12:39:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Raivi
Leeloo, I definitely sympathize with what you're feeling. If I was disqualified for the tournament with everything I put into it I would probably feel the same way.
I really enjoyed talking to you and Haart about the tournament at Fanfest.

And I'll make it clear I was one of Hydra's biggest supporters after the final last year. Last year you guys broke no rules and you did amazing work getting to the finals. When you were there you tried something very unwise and messed up, but I believe that you intended the match to be entertaining.

But when I saw that you guys had moved 0utbreak into Genos on sisi while keeping them seperate on TQ I was really confused. It seemed an incredibly bad move to me considering how easy it would be for CCP to notice how close you were working together. You guys had to know that you'd be watched since they obviously made the B team rule in response to the final.

When I saw you join the same corp I never seriously considered the idea that it would be allowed. My first thought was "That's really stupid of them, they're either gonna get 0utbreak banned and half their guys won't be able to fly in the matches, or they're all gonna get banned outright".

CCP really needed to do better with the communication on this, I think everyone agrees on that. Communication was really bad here and need to be improved in the future. The main reason I bugged Loxy for a public channel for requests instead of just using the email he used to contact me as a commentator was that I was hoping they would let you know how stupid what you were doing was and prevent this.
But I have a really hard time understanding why you guys thought both teams would ever be allowed while you test with each other so closely.

I understand if you're turned off from the game at the moment and can't even consider this right now, but I hope that by the next tournament you guys come back, merge the teams for real and enter again so we can see you defend your title on the field.
Evelgrivion
State War Academy
Caldari State
#80 - 2012-05-25 12:43:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Evelgrivion
This is certainly one of the most vindictive exchanges I've ever read from this community. Straight Come on guys, you can, and should be, better than this.

Regarding the issue in question, in no uncertain terms, Hydra and Outbreak worked together to a degree that could be considered collusion and thus by letter of the law, absolutely should be barred from competing together. However, where it gets messy is the correspondence of the Game Masters.

A Senior Game Master, an individual who is, reputedly, one of the highest authorities available to the playerbase for questions and concerns, said that what Hydra and Outbreak were doing, practicing together in the same system on the test server, was okay. Acting on good faith that what a Senior Game Master tells a player is true and accurate, Hydra and Outbreak went ahead and performed what was, by the rules of the tournament organizers, against the rules of Alliance Tournament X participation, and thus were banned from competition. Thus far, no opportunity for a dialogue between CCP and the banned parties has been publicly granted.

Do the Game Masters have reliable authority in Eve Online, or do they not? Can we, as players, take Game Masters at their word, and can we act in good faith that what a Game Master tells us is true, accurate, and reliable? The Game Masters are the front of customer service between the game's developers as operators of the online environment and the customer base; if we cannot trust that anything a game master tells a player will not be overridden by other employees at CCP, there is a horrific problem with the customer service aspect of the Eve Online service that should be addressed immediately. The ability for CCP's Game Masters to serve as a reliable source of information and advice to the player base has been substantially undermined by this incident.