These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Pallidum Treponema
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
#141 - 2012-05-25 21:50:46 UTC
Makkz wrote:
No ones buying it, your leadership made a serious serious error, live with it.


Actually, if you read through this thread, you'll see that there are quite a few people who believe Hydra's story, or at the very least that Hydra's story is a plausible explanation given the circumstances and evidence that have so far been presented.
JC Anderson
RED ROSE THORN
#142 - 2012-05-25 21:56:41 UTC
This is starting to remind me of the Aperture Harmonics wormhole exploits awhile back, and mainly the interaction between the GM's and Aperture prior to the whole situation blowing up in their faces.
Killer Gandry
The Concilium Enterprises
#143 - 2012-05-25 21:59:27 UTC
Actually.
If it all were as blatantly obvious as certain people / devs want it to look like then:

-Why do other people don't see the blatantly obvious.
-Why does it breath "damagecontrol" all over it that Devs even break EULA rules one sided.
-Why the attmepts to remove certain replies.

It all reeks like a cover up for a revenge action towards Hydra / Outbreak and we can't discuss about it because .....

CCP went from Rebel company to Rebel without a direction over the years.
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Crouching Woman Hidden Cucumber
#144 - 2012-05-25 22:12:26 UTC
Hroya wrote:

"But the former champion and runner up were banned and they would have beaten you"



Why shouldn't they get that? if PL had been kicked out last time don't you think that's what everyone would be saying about Hydra?



I'm not even a hydra fan in the slightest, I'm just a fan of EVE and this goes completely against it, especially when officials don't even admit their mistake and would rather make cu- erm.. pathetic forum jabs.
Slutty Underwear
Ephesians trading and farming
#145 - 2012-05-25 23:08:19 UTC
All I can say about this is "Poor Show CCP. Poor Show indeed".

To ban 3 Alliances for (Not proven) Meta-gaming in a game that is built on meta-gaming bad. But not only do you ban 3 Alliances for meta-gaming. You let one off (PL) for no good reason. All 4 of them should be in or all 4 should be out. It is very unfair for the rest that PL are in and the rest not. Your rule say no "Team B's". PL had 1 and you still let them in. Shame on you CCP. Shame. Hryda and Outbreak did not (1") have a "B Team". They had 2 "A Teams" practising. CCP you have mad a right HASH of this.


As a side note. I ******* hated the last match of last years Alliance Tournament. It ******* sucked ass to watch. But that is when I fully realised how this game is played. I Have no love for Hydra or Outbreak. I Do have a soft spot for PL. Don't know why. But I do. (Love shooting at their Tect Pos's in Black Rise). But to ban for bullshit reasons just so you can hope not to have the same repeated as last year is madness. Do you really think the Meta-game will not carry on? In fact, There is no way to really stop it. Do you really think "CFC" don't have a "Team B" or 2 in the Alliance Tournament? Do you really think PL don't have one hidden away? Hell take a look at this and tell me it is not imposable.

http://www.evenews24.com/2012/05/11/garths-trek-pay-to-win/





1" - But I maybe very wrong as I have no clue if they did or not
Karl Planck
Perkone
Caldari State
#146 - 2012-05-25 23:34:03 UTC
Pallidum Treponema wrote:
Makkz wrote:
No ones buying it, your leadership made a serious serious error, live with it.


Actually, if you read through this thread, you'll see that there are quite a few people who believe Hydra's story, or at the very least that Hydra's story is a plausible explanation given the circumstances and evidence that have so far been presented.


thats not quite right. Its more that they thought the MIGHT be in the ok and decided to go ahead LIKE THEY HAD THE OK

I has all the eve inactivity
Tyzzara
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#147 - 2012-05-25 23:47:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyzzara
Tyzzara wrote:
/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...


I find it humorous that the same people who were able to entirely manipulate last years event are now screaming from the rooftops about CCP decision. You should have applied some creative thought to specifically making it look like two separate teams from the start. You guys knew the situation. You knew all eyes were on you.

Then you Derped. You are all intelligent enough to know that you should have been more pro-active to ensure CCP had no reason to do this.

Now we all pay the price. Champs are not even in the running. Hmmph....

Life... there is nothing like it. I mean... you can't make this **** up.


Random horrible thought: CCP allow Hydra/Outbreak to have a team and pilots from either can join... but one team only. RvB anyone? Dunno on this....

AFK Time Zone
Tyrrax Thorrk
Guiding Hand Social Club
#148 - 2012-05-25 23:51:07 UTC
Slutty Underwear wrote:
All I can say about this is "Poor Show CCP. Poor Show indeed".

To ban 3 Alliances for (Not proven) Meta-gaming in a game that is built on meta-gaming bad. But not only do you ban 3 Alliances for meta-gaming. You let one off (PL) for no good reason. All 4 of them should be in or all 4 should be out. It is very unfair for the rest that PL are in and the rest not. Your rule say no "Team B's". PL had 1 and you still let them in. Shame on you CCP. Shame. Hryda and Outbreak did not (1") have a "B Team". They had 2 "A Teams" practising. CCP you have mad a right HASH of this.


I agree CCP could've handled all this a lot better, I don't agree that PL had a B-team since I know Shamis was quite emphatic about wanting all their focus on a single team, but CCP have their own definitions and their own interpretations (and lack of intel obviously)
CCP have no way of knowing what PL / hydra / 0utbreak are thinking or doing out of game so they can only base their decisions on apperances, hydrbreak were really stupid and failed horribly to make it look like they weren't breaking the rule, that's all there is to it really.

Slutty Underwear wrote:

Do you really think "CFC" don't have a "Team B" or 2 in the Alliance Tournament? Do you really think PL don't have one hidden away? Hell take a look at this and tell me it is not imposable.

http://www.evenews24.com/2012/05/11/garths-trek-pay-to-win/


CFC is a coalition not an alliance so of course they have multiple teams, no PL don't have one hidden away, they want to win under their own name and rightly focus all their resources on doing so without risking getting banned for stupidity.

That link is to a completely unrealistic and pointless scenerio, no it's not impossible - yes it is ********.
Karbox Delacroix
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#149 - 2012-05-25 23:54:53 UTC
That CCP trumpets how their poor permission system led to a spy disbanding an entire alliance while simultaneously decrying the meta-game in ATX(*) is simply silly.

Live by the SPA! die by the SPAI.

* Let ATX forever be known as ATX(*). Let the winner of ATX(*) be known as the winner(*) of ATX(*).
Zo'ha
Techno Miners
#150 - 2012-05-26 00:52:04 UTC
The way I see it as an outsider:

- asks intentionally ambiguous question (the petition)
- gets an answer they are happy with and decides that they can do what they intended.
- get banned from tournament for breaking the rules
- poasts on forum taking the petition response out of context and claiming they are hard done by
- community harvests tears

I dont think anyone doubts that 0utbreak/Hydra are separate entities on TQ under normal circumstances. But lets be honest here, the alliance tourney is not normal circumstances and they have proven in the past they work together.

Its their own stupid fault and they have nobody to blame but themselves. It was clear those rules were created so people didnt take the p1ss like last year, so what do you do? Oh yeah, log in to sisi and all join the same corp and share ships and fittings. DERPDERP
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#151 - 2012-05-26 00:58:39 UTC
Zo'ha wrote:
The way I see it as an outsider:

- asks intentionally ambiguous question (the petition)
- gets an answer they are happy with and decides that they can do what they intended.
- get banned from tournament for breaking the rules
- poasts on forum taking the petition response out of context and claiming they are hard done by
- community harvests tears

I dont think anyone doubts that 0utbreak/Hydra are separate entities on TQ under normal circumstances. But lets be honest here, the alliance tourney is not normal circumstances and they have proven in the past they work together.

Its their own stupid fault and they have nobody to blame but themselves. It was clear those rules were created so people didnt take the p1ss like last year, so what do you do? Oh yeah, log in to sisi and all join the same corp and share ships and fittings. DERPDERP


Why are you ignoring the multiple emails they sent directly to the AT team?
Zo'ha
Techno Miners
#152 - 2012-05-26 01:08:41 UTC
If you were in the same position and didn't get a response would you just assume you could do what you wanted?

Personally, if I was investing the amount of time they are purporting to I would err on the side of caution, would you not?
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#153 - 2012-05-26 01:24:26 UTC
Zo'ha wrote:
If you were in the same position and didn't get a response would you just assume you could do what you wanted?

Personally, if I was investing the amount of time they are purporting to I would err on the side of caution, would you not?


Obviously they knew that the GM response wasnt sufficient, so they emailed the AT organizers several times.

No response. I would go with the only thing I heard from a staff member of CCP.
Killer Gandry
The Concilium Enterprises
#154 - 2012-05-26 10:00:44 UTC
If they ask if they can test against / with eachother on Sisi then what does the format matter?
What happens on Sisi is / can be different from things on Tranqility.

If CCP can't even be bothered to pull their heads out of their arses and communicate then screw AT completely.

AT isn't about alliance against alliance anymore. It's about wallet versus wallet. And CCP needs their shiny AT toy to promo a game with but not letting a major part of that game actually seep through into the AT.

Let's put it blatantly clear.

CCP screwed up here big time. A simple communication effort of them would have resolved the whole matter easy. But like a little kid which still had a grudgematch open for last years AT they didn't bother and smashed their toys in anger and took it out on those bad bad Hydra / Outbreak people.

A Heretic spokesman keeps saying here how well deserved that was but the underlying message is actually " Damn lucky we got rid of 2 very impressive teams which makes it easier for us"
Where the Goon brosefs stance is was already clear, no need to waste any words on them.

There are so many solutions which would have been way more elegant or diplomatic but CCP chose to take none of those solutions. They stomp their feet, break their own rules to get the message through because ofcourse they can break them at a whim and reinforce them in the same breath again.
We call that childish behaviour where we enforce a rule which only the rulemaker can break.

And the best part is that talking about it get's either made impossible by locks or simply ignoring people up to post deletion and even singlesided rule enforcement.
Kyang Tia
Matari Exodus
#155 - 2012-05-26 11:04:03 UTC
I really dno't want to get into this discussion, since it is getting inceasingly pointless.

Just one thing: Hydra and Outbreak members, you have my highest respect for being among the best PvPers in this game. You may have screwed up the finals of AT9, but then again, the whole tourney before that would not have been half as entertaining without you. Without the best, AT10 is probably going to be a somewhat boring affair. You will be missed. Fly safe.
Raimo
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#156 - 2012-05-26 11:05:34 UTC
Kyang Tia wrote:
I really dno't want to get into this discussion, since it is getting inceasingly pointless.

Just one thing: Hydra and Outbreak members, you have my highest respect for being among the best PvPers in this game. You may have screwed up the finals of AT9, but then again, the whole tourney before that would not have been half as entertaining without you. Without the best, AT10 is probably going to be a somewhat boring affair. You will be missed. Fly safe.


o7 and thanks.
Edenmain
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#157 - 2012-05-26 11:17:35 UTC


Fair enough, but CCP.... Don'y you dare refer to EVE as a sandbox ever again, because it's clearly not... Well at least one that's raked flat by you whenever you feel the need.
CCP Sreegs
CCP Retirement Home
#158 - 2012-05-26 11:26:44 UTC
Edenmain wrote:


Fair enough, but CCP.... Don'y you dare refer to EVE as a sandbox ever again, because it's clearly not... Well at least one that's raked flat by you whenever you feel the need.


The alliance tournament has never been a sandbox and by nature never will or can be. We make rules that specifically make it not a sandbox. When those rules aren't followed we enforce them. I'm sorry if you're confusing The Alliance Tournament Rules with the overall premise of the spaceship videogame EVE Online, but the fact remains that the sandbox mentality has never applied to the tournament. Except perhaps when it is convenient to forum posters who are mad.

"Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012
Edenmain
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#159 - 2012-05-26 11:57:38 UTC
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Edenmain wrote:


Fair enough, but CCP.... Don'y you dare refer to EVE as a sandbox ever again, because it's clearly not... Well at least one that's raked flat by you whenever you feel the need.


The alliance tournament has never been a sandbox and by nature never will or can be. We make rules that specifically make it not a sandbox. When those rules aren't followed we enforce them. I'm sorry if you're confusing The Alliance Tournament Rules with the overall premise of the spaceship videogame EVE Online, but the fact remains that the sandbox mentality has never applied to the tournament. Except perhaps when it is convenient to forum posters who are mad.



I not particularly "Mad" I've not lost anything of any value, lost the chance to again participate in the tourney maybe and maybe win some pixelated ship and/or isk.

You on the otherhand seem to have lost any credibility with some very old EVE gamers, alienated a vast majority of the EVE public and devalued the Alliance Tournament on it's 10th anniversay.

I think I'm losing the "who's maddest" contest.
Ravelin Eb
Blue Canary
Watch This
#160 - 2012-05-26 12:16:53 UTC
Edenmain wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Edenmain wrote:


Fair enough, but CCP.... Don'y you dare refer to EVE as a sandbox ever again, because it's clearly not... Well at least one that's raked flat by you whenever you feel the need.


The alliance tournament has never been a sandbox and by nature never will or can be. We make rules that specifically make it not a sandbox. When those rules aren't followed we enforce them. I'm sorry if you're confusing The Alliance Tournament Rules with the overall premise of the spaceship videogame EVE Online, but the fact remains that the sandbox mentality has never applied to the tournament. Except perhaps when it is convenient to forum posters who are mad.



I not particularly "Mad" I've not lost anything of any value, lost the chance to again participate in the tourney maybe and maybe win some pixelated ship and/or isk.

You on the otherhand seem to have lost any credibility with some very old EVE gamers, alienated a vast majority of the EVE public and devalued the Alliance Tournament on it's 10th anniversay.

I think I'm losing the "who's maddest" contest.


You devalued the alliance tournament by deliberately breaking the rules(you know the one created to stop what you did last year), CCP are on the ball and caught you out, its your own fault that the tournament is 'devalued' at the loss of your teams.