These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
MrWhitei God
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#81 - 2012-05-25 12:56:33 UTC
Quote:
I would appreciate some direction and clarification regarding the roles for this year’s alliance tournament – specifically “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.”
I cannot disagree with the policy, but I would like to be clear as to what constitutes a “B” team. For example, are 2 alliances sparring against each other and testing out ship setups before the tournament itself classed as breaking this rule?

Thanks for your time.
xxxxx


What you also seem to be skimming over is the question put to the GM.

That GM didn't have the full context, what 2 alliances are testing together? The GM wouldn't have seen the other emails sent to the tourny team.

The question asked was if 2 alliances are allowed to spar against.
If Hydra tested with some alliance not in the tournament they are still testing with another alliance and that would have been fine.

As far as i read that, the GM's reply is still valid and correct.
Kaeda Maxwell
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#82 - 2012-05-25 13:00:07 UTC
First of all;

I'm sorry to see you leave Leeloo. I really appreciated what you did with the 'Daily Roams' and EVE will be a less awesome place without you around. Thank you for the effort you put into those roams. I understand your sentiment very well however. Good luck in whatever you end up playing after EVE.

To CCP;

I used to be somebody that would defend most of your decisions to my corp mates and the larger community when they came up. Your failure to step over your own shadows here has changed my attitude away from this and it saddens me.

You profess that you wanted to make the AT more fun and better for everyone. Well, I can't speak for others but you ruined AT X for me at least. Whatever the outcome now it will forever be 'tainted' because the defending champions weren't there to defend their title. Also if you truly view Hydra & Outbreak as the same entity you should have allowed them the same thing you allowed RvB. If nothing else this decision wouldn't have looked so much like you're being petty about last years finals then.
xo3e
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#83 - 2012-05-25 13:12:16 UTC
Quote:
you should have allowed them the same thing you allowed RvB


Quote:
you guys come back


no, they just wanted to get rid of us in any way, and they acted openly.

we would get disqualified due to some unconvincing reasons even if we applied to AT with only hydra or only outbreak.

so, no. i dont know about others but for me its enough. ccp can have its cake

Signature removed. Navigator
Raimo
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#84 - 2012-05-25 13:13:49 UTC
Evelgrivion wrote:
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.


Kaeda Maxwell wrote:
First of all;

I'm sorry to see you leave Leeloo. I really appreciated what you did with the 'Daily Roams' and EVE will be a less awesome place without you around. Thank you for the effort you put into those roams. I understand your sentiment very well however. Good luck in whatever you end up playing after EVE.

To CCP;

I used to be somebody that would defend most of your decisions to my corp mates and the larger community when they came up. Your failure to step over your own shadows here has changed my attitude away from this and it saddens me.

You profess that you wanted to make the AT more fun and better for everyone. Well, I can't speak for others but you ruined AT X for me at least. Whatever the outcome now it will forever be 'tainted' because the defending champions weren't there to defend their title. Also if you truly view Hydra & Outbreak as the same entity you should have allowed them the same thing you allowed RvB. If nothing else this decision wouldn't have looked so much like you're being petty about last years finals then.


2 very good posts.
ScoRpS
Moist Wanted.
OnlyFleets.
#85 - 2012-05-25 13:15:56 UTC  |  Edited by: ScoRpS
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.


I would like to see that interpretated clearer. We are infact two independant "A" teams who just happened to not have enough numbers to field 24 folks on either side for the purposes of regular meaningful testing and practicing.

So we asked ahead of training for clarification about it whislt also outlining our intentions to be transparaent and co-operative. We also ask if we are going to get banned anyway and should we bother start training as its a lot of effort.

We were completely aware that this rule was for us and that CCP were gunning for us this year. We would have to be pretty ignorant to think otherwise and actually wanted to put on a good show anyway to make up for last years debacle,

So we get clarification that its ok and training commences. And I should point out that it is just infact training on the Test Server and not the Main Event.

300 0utbreak man hours for training later without warning about 2-3 minutes before the 1st auction, We were pointed towards a post just made and that it was final.

By now it was clear that this was a public execution predetermined some time before the event rules were even published. This was further reinforced by ropey desicions and intrepretations concerning other teams in similar predicaments. One set of folks were forced to combine into one team to still compete. And the B team of another collaberation was the one removed and not the "A" team as cleary stated in the rules,

So anyone who attempts to say it wasn't personal and a valid interpretation of the rules is under a misapprehension about all the details.

In any case its done and some will say we deserved it and others will have other opinions but even after all tthe route taken by CCP was cowardly, punitive and inconsistent and that makes me think even less of them then I did before.
Pallidum Treponema
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
#86 - 2012-05-25 13:32:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Pallidum Treponema
I've been reading over this decision, the correspondence between CCP and various parties, as well as comments made by people in this thread, as well as other forums. As far as I'm concerned, my stance is as follows:

* Had Hydra and 0utbreak not attempted to contact CCP, the decision to ban them would have been valid.

* Had Hydra and 0utbreak attempted to contact CCP, and proceeded to train without receiving a response from neither the ATX team nor GMs, and proceeded to train together, the ban would have been valid.

* Had Hydra and 0utbreak attempted to contact CCP, received a response that they were not to train together, yet continued to do so, the decision to ban them would have been valid.

* Had Hydra and 0utbreak attempted to contact CCP, received a response from the GM team that they were permitted to train together, later to receive a response from the ATX team indicating the opposite, and then continued to train together, the decision to ban them would have been valid.


None of the above scenarios took place.

Instead, the ATX team failed to respond to the concerns raised by Hydra and 0utbreak. It can be argued that Hydra and 0utbreak should not have worked that closely together on the test server, but given that they had received permission to train together by a GM, an employee representing CCP, it is certainly plausible that they did so in order to reduce logistics.

Was it a smart thing to do? Probably not.

Is it plausible that they did so with no malicious intentions? Yes.


Given that the alliance tournament has not yet officially started, it is my opinion that the ATX team should have raised their objections with the Hydra and 0utbreak teams, by contacting both teams and established a dialogue. This is an especially important point considering that the ATX team failed to respond to requests from the Hydra and 0utbreak teams regarding this very issue.

The failure of the ATX team to establish a dialogue, combined with the harsh nature of their ruling, suggests that the ruling was made to intentionally punish the Hydra and 0utbreak teams for their actions during the last alliance tournament. It can be further speculated that their failure to respond to the concerns raised by the Hydra and 0utbreak teams was part of this plan.

Is this proof that this is the case? Do I believe this to be the case? No on both questions. But, given the information that we have, it is certainly plausible. In fact, it is about as plausible as Hydra and 0utbreak training together on SiSi in good faith, after having received a response from a GM permitting them to do so.
Pallidum Treponema
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
#87 - 2012-05-25 13:43:20 UTC
In addition to my post, the following quote from CCP Loxy regarding RvB highlights my point:

Quote:
We have been in contact with the executor of both alliances and have reached a decision that will allow both sides to compete together.


This clearly indicates that the ATX team contacted the RvB alliances regarding concerns that both teams were considered to be one entity.

That they failed to do so regarding Hydra and 0utbreak, despite requests from Hydra and 0utbreak for clarification, suggest that the ATX team either made a huge mistake in their correspondence with the teams, for which they rightfully should make amends and speak to both teams in order to reach a compromise, OR intentionally failed to respond to the concerns, with implications that are far worse.
Tawa Suyo
C.O.D.E
#88 - 2012-05-25 13:44:22 UTC
Pallidum Treponema wrote:
I've been reading over this decision, the correspondence between CCP and various parties, as well as comments made by people in this thread, as well as other forums. As far as I'm concerned, my stance is as follows:

* Had Hydra and 0utbreak not attempted to contact CCP, the decision to ban them would have been valid.

* Had Hydra and 0utbreak attempted to contact CCP, and proceeded to train without receiving a response from neither the ATX team nor GMs, and proceeded to train together, the ban would have been valid.

* Had Hydra and 0utbreak attempted to contact CCP, received a response that they were not to train together, yet continued to do so, the decision to ban them would have been valid.

* Had Hydra and 0utbreak attempted to contact CCP, received a response from the GM team that they were permitted to train together, later to receive a response from the ATX team indicating the opposite, and then continued to train together, the decision to ban them would have been valid.


None of the above scenarios took place.

Instead, the ATX team failed to respond to the concerns raised by Hydra and 0utbreak. It can be argued that Hydra and 0utbreak should not have worked that closely together on the test server, but given that they had received permission to train together by a GM, an employee representing CCP, it is certainly plausible that they did so in order to reduce logistics.

Was it a smart thing to do? Probably not.

Is it plausible that they did so with no malicious intentions? Yes.


Given that the alliance tournament has not yet officially started, it is my opinion that the ATX team should have raised their objections with the Hydra and 0utbreak teams, by contacting both teams and established a dialogue. This is an especially important point considering that the ATX team failed to respond to requests from the Hydra and 0utbreak teams regarding this very issue.

The failure of the ATX team to establish a dialogue, combined with the harsh nature of their ruling, suggests that the ruling was made to intentionally punish the Hydra and 0utbreak teams for their actions during the last alliance tournament. It can be further speculated that their failure to respond to the concerns raised by the Hydra and 0utbreak teams was part of this plan.

Is this proof that this is the case? Do I believe this to be the case? No on both questions. But, given the information that we have, it is certainly plausible. In fact, it is about as plausible as Hydra and 0utbreak training together on SiSi in good faith, after having received a response from a GM permitting them to do so.
Boz Wel
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#89 - 2012-05-25 13:58:55 UTC
Pallidum Treponema wrote:
In addition to my post, the following quote from CCP Loxy regarding RvB highlights my point:

Quote:
We have been in contact with the executor of both alliances and have reached a decision that will allow both sides to compete together.


This clearly indicates that the ATX team contacted the RvB alliances regarding concerns that both teams were considered to be one entity.

That they failed to do so regarding Hydra and 0utbreak, despite requests from Hydra and 0utbreak for clarification, suggest that the ATX team either made a huge mistake in their correspondence with the teams, for which they rightfully should make amends and speak to both teams in order to reach a compromise, OR intentionally failed to respond to the concerns, with implications that are far worse.


I tend to agree. It's not hard to answer your emails in a timely fashion CCP and actually for the most part your company as a whole is great about customer service. As such, it's really difficult to believe that you just couldn't find any time to get back to these guys with an answer to their multiple attempts to contact you and/or give them a warning before taking steps to ban them from this year's tournament. As it is, your alliance tournament team completely fell down on the job when it came to responding to these guys, and to give such an extreme punishment after you failed to respond to their queries is uncalled for.

Even if you agree that what they were doing was against the plain language or the spirit of the tournament rules, it's unprofessional to act in this fashion. Give them a warning, let them merge their teams, and move on with the tournament. As it is, the alliance tournament team at CCP appears dysfunctional at best, and vindictive and petty at worst. Be the bigger man here CCP, back off your decision and let them enter a single team, and the tournament will be better for it.
Karbox Delacroix
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#90 - 2012-05-25 14:16:58 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
spookydonut wrote:
Maybe you should have taken their warnings seriously and only entered one team.


Solid advice right there.


You are right, they should have petitioned one of CCPs wise and knowledgeable GMs. In addition to having a comprehensive understanding of the game mechanics and rules, they can escalate your petition to a Dev and you can expect a prompt and courteous response that will address your particular question. I mean, you wouldn't want to submit two teams like PL did and wind up with both of them being banned.

oh wait...
Musician
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#91 - 2012-05-25 14:23:07 UTC
CCP please reconsider your decision?
Kyros Xero
Xuronautics
#92 - 2012-05-25 14:29:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Kyros Xero
People keep referring to the GM judgement like it was a bad or misleading thing, or trying to point to it as some sort of blank check to justify anything Hydra wanted to do on the test server. In contrast, the reality is that the GM response is a pretty barebones vanilla answer on a very specific thing: sparring together.

Hyrda/Outbreak wrote:
.... For example, are 2 alliances sparring against each other and testing out ship setups before the tournament itself classed as breaking this rule? ....

GM common sense wrote:
.... No, as long as those alliances are not working for the same team, so to
speak. If we find out that these 2 alliances are pretty much the same
people, but created a second alliance to try and stack the deck then both
will be removed....


In a nutshell the GM is saying, two teams sparring is not in itself a rule breach however there's also a very explicit warning against appearing to be "pretty much the same people".

I think Hydra should be allowed in; they could be played up as the bad boys trying to redeem themselves. I think the unfortunate lack of timely official CCP response to the broader situation that was brewing would provide CCP an out to make a plausible and well-reasoned exception/clarification here. But let's not go around complaining about lack of CCP response and then **** all over the one guy who actually went out of his way to give you a reasonable response.

POS Layered Defenses: "Panic" mode and defense-automation arrays
TheSkeptic
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#93 - 2012-05-25 14:48:36 UTC
The simple fact you had to even ask CCP shows that you yourself were not even sure if you were one entity or not.

...

Killer Gandry
The Concilium Enterprises
#94 - 2012-05-25 14:54:10 UTC
ATX already is a farce.

CCP always promotes EVE as it is. A harsh metagaming community, and they love it.
But not when it comes to their prized front in the form of the AT.

Micro transactions to purchase spots for the AT is considered a form to ensure only real PvPers participate. Sure, every PvP corp / alliance sets aside 40-50 PLEX worth just so they can bid on an AT spot which promotes CCP's game. You are paying to promote their game and you just love it.
How ******** can you be.
They should pay you for participating in a serious manner because the AT videos are used to promote and as an effect contribute to their wallets, not yours.

The whole crap of go and farm the 40-50 PLEX so you are allowed to bid is the most ridiculous crap. There are serious PvP corporations which work on the bare minimums. They take a short farm break to purchase new ships if needed and then go back to pew pew.

The only real benefits for this kind of crap I see for the old alliances and moonholders. And how odd that the CFC is the major moonholder and as such has enough in stock to purchase a spot for everyone of their members.
So in how far can we say the CFC members aren't actually more in cahoots with eachother than Outbreak / Hydra?

Also the quicj and easy way they dispose the 2 alliances that messed up their previous trophy parade is typical revenge behavious, specially looking at how PL receives no ban whereas their feeder alliance get's removed.

No there certainly isn't any favouritism nor any revenge feelings playing here. It just looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, but we all know it's a chicken.
Easley Thames
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#95 - 2012-05-25 15:16:01 UTC
Wow, it's wide open this year if we really have no Hydra, Outbreak, Darkside or PL involved.

Then again, whosoever wins this year will have won a somewhat less-impressive victory with none of the favorites playing this time.
Time Funnel
Just a side dish
Outspoken Alliance
#96 - 2012-05-25 15:25:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Time Funnel
If you are Hydra or Outbreak this sucks.

If you are CCP you are probably still somewhat confused as to what Hydra / Outbreak really expected to happen when they did the same thing that precipitated the creation of the rule in the first place.

If you are a fan of EVE you love a good controversy leading up to a big event.

If you are me you are probably chuckling that a GM defense is not really a defense. :bitter:

If you are a fan of metagaming then you should love the irony of how making a terrible, terrible, terrible decision lost last year's 1 and 2 teams the tournament before the tournament even started.

If you are a competitor you are probably happy that the strongest 2-headed monster (swidt? (hydra) ) has been removed from the pool.

Such an interesting event...

Oh and I almost forgot. If you like drama it is going to be pretty fun to watch the commentator / CCP interaction this year. So much subtext going on. It will be like drama porn.
Diana Valenti
Disposable Spies
#97 - 2012-05-25 15:31:23 UTC
Im glad they are banned, last year final was terrible.
Pallidum Treponema
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
#98 - 2012-05-25 15:42:14 UTC
Quote:
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. -- Robert J. Hanlon



Were Hydra and 0utbreak stupid to merge into a single corp on SiSi for the tournament practice?

Yes.

Did they have malicious intent?

I don't know. I want to believe that they did not.


Were CCP stupid to make such a harsh ruling, and sticking with it even after learning about the GM response?

Yes.

Did they have malicious intent?

I don't know. I want to believe that they did not.
Intigo
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#99 - 2012-05-25 15:46:30 UTC
If the GM response was the only attempt at getting information out of the tournament team that would be relevant, but it was not.

hydra provail
Gnaw LF
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#100 - 2012-05-25 15:46:32 UTC
Evelgrivion wrote:
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.




Nailed on the head a thousand times over. The issue here is not whether or not Hydra or Outbreak deserve a ban, but rather should such a ban be placed under the current circumstances. Considering they head OFFICIAL ******* GO AHEAD FROM CCP, doesnt matter who in CCP, they had a response telling them that they are within the rules. To then turn around and ban them without so much as a warning or ultimatum is not only capricious but also malicious. Do the right thing CCP.