These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
CCP Sreegs
CCP Retirement Home
#281 - 2012-05-26 15:43:01 UTC
iLLeLogicaL wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:
iLLeLogicaL wrote:

What's different? They're both the sole A-teams of their respective alliances.
They just spar together for the sake of convenience


the difference is that last year was last year? Do I really have to say this?

Still don't see how they broke a "rule" if you cannot provide any proof of their malicious intent.

They just trained together in one wh, against each other.
Because you can't get crap for fights on sisi.

And next time proof read, because you didn't include the "rule", the one and only, in the full rule list of the devblog.
It's not in there, it's above there. But you did update all the other rules properly...
Done on purpose for an entierly different reason?

Quote:
Next week we will be going into more detail about how you can participate in the random draw and how to apply for an auction spot. Today we want to look at tournament rules and what we wanted to achieve with these. While a full listing is available below for your perusal, and will be updated on the new Alliance Tournament page next week, we would like to take a moment and highlight some of the important changes:

We are increasing the number of ships you can field in the qualifying rounds from five to six.
We are increasing the number of ships you can field in the final two weekends from 10 to 12.
Match times have been reduced from 15 minutes to 10 minutes.
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.
Ship point values have been changed with some ships going down in cost.
Alliance Tournament referees can now call a match null and void or declare a result if they feel a team is not competing or throwing a game. This will be entirely at the discretion of the tournament referees.
These are some of the main rule changes which we feel will add to the overall betterment of Alliance Tournament. Below is the full rule list for your information.



Match Rules

Tournament Rules

This is a three stage tournament, with 64 alliances allowed to enter.
There will be two pre-qualifying rounds, followed by a 32 team group stage and a 16 team final day.
All competing pilots must have been members of the alliance for which they are competing, and be a member of that Alliance by downtime on May, 05, 2012.
All alliance members are eligible to compete in any match in which their alliance is taking part, subject to all applicable rules; teams do not have to remain the same between games.
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.


I get it. You're not going to get it. Enough.

"Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012
Hroya
#282 - 2012-05-26 15:46:11 UTC
Time Funnel wrote:

Live by the metagame, die by the metagame. You make a stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, decision to flaunt the rules with some flimsy response from a GM and what do you really ******* expect. I mean comeon.


Hehe yeah, if that happens then cest la vie. But come on, they got "caught", wich i might add doesnt seem all that difficult to me to do if you have the right tools at your disposal, but in the spirit of this milestone you could combine punishement with some true eve understanding and not go for a complete whipe but go for the middleground. It would make this years AT that much more hillarious, unless of course it's all serious schnitzelbussiness and those pixels mean the world to you.
Like i said, some schemes you wont even catch in time, they are that well hidden.

You go your corridor but.
Intigo
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#283 - 2012-05-26 15:48:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Intigo
How am I spamming, Sreegs? I am just asking questions. If I am breaking any forum rules then please remind me which rules I am breaking and I will cease to do so.

And again, you ignored the part about other teams considering doing the very same thing.

And the unanswered emails.

Time Funnel wrote:
Intigo wrote:
Suleiman Shouaa wrote:
Can you just state why the CCP Alliance Tournament team chose not to respond to them, but responded to other emails.


I would love to know this too.

And the fact that he has yet to address anything about CVA considering to do the very same thing we did and thinking it was well within the rules (as we did).


CVA should be banned! They did what we did! We were banned! THIS IS SO TERRIBLY UNFAIR.

WHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA


I don't want CVA banned, they are awesome guys. I am using them as an example, simply. You should be able to see how silly it is that 2 teams get instantly banned over something that 2 entirely different entities had considered doing thinking it was well within the rules - just as HYDRA & Outbreak thought.

And this being after any attempts at clarification were completely ignored by the Alliance Tournament team.

This is the part in question:

Quote:
-4th and CVA decided to train against each other, testing setups. We would dicsuss failures, wins, errors made etc, but in the end we would never make a deal, just train together.
-We discussed forming 1 (ONE) corporation to make these training in wormholes possible; if we wouldnt merge, 4th would have been forced to spend days and days to setup their own pos, to do this.

hydra provail
Ruareve
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#284 - 2012-05-26 15:51:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Ruareve
Seems to me CCP is enforcing the spirit of the rules rather than the letter. The rules said an alliance could not have a B team entered. Hydra and Outbreak are clearly two alliances entering two separate A teams.

However...

If you change the wording to Hydra and Outbreak were operating as one team with two entrants then the spirit of the rules has been broken even though the letter was not.

Now take a look at the case of PL. They were fulfilling the spirit of the rules while CCP claimed PL broke the letter. In this case CCP ignored their own wording and failed to punish both teams as they said they would.


At this point I would say the confusion surrounding the wording of the AT rules is enough to warrant re-looking the issue.

How much can two separate entities train against each other before they are considered the same team?

Do movements of personnel and corps/alliances on Sisi have the consequence as movements on Live?



While I agree the final match last year was a complete and total letdown I think the current method of handling the situation has been rather poor. CCP spelled out the rules vaguely, clarification was sought with a poorly worded inquiry, and now there has been two different forms of enforcement for the same infraction.

Given all of the drama over the rules, and the lack of two of the strongest competitors, I'm wondering if the AT is even gonna be worth watching this year.

(Please not I didn't even come close to mentioning the conspiracy thoughts behind PL's massive Plex bid and the fact they remain in the tournament even though CCP said they broke the rules)

Yet another blog about Eve- http://ruar-eve.blogspot.com/
penifSMASH
ElitistOps
Deepwater Hooligans
#285 - 2012-05-26 15:53:06 UTC
Sreegs, I think you are doing a great job handling ATX and responding to these myriad of troll questions. Keep up the good work.
CCP Sreegs
CCP Retirement Home
#286 - 2012-05-26 15:56:06 UTC
penifSMASH wrote:
Sreegs, I think you are doing a great job handling ATX and responding to these myriad of troll questions. Keep up the good work.


I'm demanding overtime!

"Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012
Time Funnel
Just a side dish
Outspoken Alliance
#287 - 2012-05-26 16:00:09 UTC
Intigo wrote:

I don't want CVA banned, they are awesome guys. I am using them as an example, simply. You should be able to see how silly it is that 2 teams get instantly banned over something that 2 entirely different entities had considered doing thinking it was well within the rules.


If you think that you are under the microscope because you were a large part of the reason that the rules against collusion got put in place you are probably right.

What do you really expect to happen? I mean seriously.

Sure you are good at this game and at tournaments. in fact you were the primary archetype that I used when putting together a team for this year, examining your setups, methods, and whatnot.

But you made a tactical mistake. And someone hit you with the rulebook. Overall it sucks, but they needed to stomp out collusion. It gives people an unfair advantage in a tournament format.

If you thought for a minute one guy on "Team Liquid" in Starcraft was soft playing his senior member on the same team during a final, there would be fan outrage. That is not fair, balanced, or good for anyone involved.

When a rule changes there is inertia. I believe this is the inertia.

Sorry you were made an example of. Move on.
Intigo
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#288 - 2012-05-26 16:05:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Intigo
CCP Sreegs wrote:
penifSMASH wrote:
Sreegs, I think you are doing a great job handling ATX and responding to these myriad of troll questions. Keep up the good work.


I'm demanding overtime!


You still haven't responded at all to the example I presented in regards to CVA & 4th. They were not mentioned in the stickies - I checked.

Time Funnel wrote:
Intigo wrote:

I don't want CVA banned, they are awesome guys. I am using them as an example, simply. You should be able to see how silly it is that 2 teams get instantly banned over something that 2 entirely different entities had considered doing thinking it was well within the rules.


If you think that you are under the microscope because you were a large part of the reason that the rules against collusion got put in place you are probably right.

What do you really expect to happen? I mean seriously.

Sure you are good at this game and at tournaments. in fact you were the primary archetype that I used when putting together a team for this year, examining your setups, methods, and whatnot.

But you made a tactical mistake. And someone hit you with the rulebook. Overall it sucks, but they needed to stomp out collusion. It gives people an unfair advantage in a tournament format.

If you thought for a minute one guy on "Team Liquid" in Starcraft was soft playing his senior member on the same team during a final, there would be fan outrage. That is not fair, balanced, or good for anyone involved.

When a rule changes there is inertia. I believe this is the inertia.

Sorry you were made an example of. Move on.


I am not saying we are "under the microscope" - that is perfectly fair if we were. What I am arguing is that other teams considered doing the EXACT same thing we did because they thought it was well within the rules (just as we did).

That is an excellent example of the fact that the rules are incredibly vague and that banning 2 separate teams over it after ignoring ALL attempts at clarification/communication and giving no warning is ludicrous.

The ruling here was based off what happened in AT IX - there is no way you can justify it based entirely off what happened in AT X. And that is just sad because no rules were broken at all in AT IX.

hydra provail
carbomb
Super Team Munkey
#289 - 2012-05-26 16:07:02 UTC
CCP Sreegs wrote:
carbomb wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:
carbomb wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:
[

None of those teams had a history of cheating using the exact same methods they were using again this year. Were we not to have to enforce these new rules a conversation with PL or RvB wouldn't have been necessary because those teams would have been in.

I hope this helps but it probably won't.




I'm Sorry, where did it say that what happend in AT9 was against the rules? No rules were broken! therefore they can not be regarded as "cheats" for it.

What would probably end all this posting is an admission from sreegs and co that basically this is them hitting back at last years finalists out of spite. You outmetagamed the metagamers and fair play ccp, you did it well. Just admit that this is payback and this matter will be closed. Its pretty pathetic how you are behaving. Most people can see that this was your attempt at revenge. You really are a bunch of kids at times. You made mistakes, you tried cover them up. admit your wrong doings and move along. By the way, If one of my employee's spoke to my customers the way you do to yours you would be out on your ear! Show some professionalism, man.

also love how you hung the Senior GM who responded to Hydra/0utbreak out to dry to cover you behinds. Smooth!


Read the stickies. You seem to have missed them


if they cheated in AT9 then you would have disqualified them both and certainly not awarded them their prizes. The reason you didn't, is because there were no rules about what they did. You can not brandish them as cheats when they did not break any rules.


Thank you for telling me why I do what I do. They are cheats because they were cheating which is why they won't be in this year's tournament as explained in two sticky posts in this very forum.


It is a wonder why you do what you do when you cant even grasp the meaning of words you use. I believe you might have a serious problem and should seek medical help. Or atleast return to school for a brush up on English Language. You dont understand the meaning of cheating or "being a cheat" here is a definition from wiki "Cheating, a term generally used for the breaking of rules to gain advantage in a competitive situation" and from the dictionary.. "cheats" to violate rules or regulations; I hope this helps!

There were not rule in AT9 that got broken. You are wrongly accusing them of being cheats. If they had done the same in this years tournament then you would be correct in calling them cheats, however, they did not, so you cant. The fact that you "believed" they were going to is irrelevant really. You are punishing them for something they have not yet done.

Edenmain
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#290 - 2012-05-26 16:08:07 UTC
Time Funnel wrote:
Intigo wrote:

I don't want CVA banned, they are awesome guys. I am using them as an example, simply. You should be able to see how silly it is that 2 teams get instantly banned over something that 2 entirely different entities had considered doing thinking it was well within the rules.


If you think that you are under the microscope because you were a large part of the reason that the rules against collusion got put in place you are probably right.

What do you really expect to happen? I mean seriously.

Sure you are good at this game and at tournaments. in fact you were the primary archetype that I used when putting together a team for this year, examining your setups, methods, and whatnot.

But you made a tactical mistake. And someone hit you with the rulebook. Overall it sucks, but they needed to stomp out collusion. It gives people an unfair advantage in a tournament format.

If you thought for a minute one guy on "Team Liquid" in Starcraft was soft playing his senior member on the same team during a final, there would be fan outrage. That is not fair, balanced, or good for anyone involved.

When a rule changes there is inertia. I believe this is the inertia.

Sorry you were made an example of. Move on.


So people not in the same corp but who are working together aren't colluding?

I'm looking forward to seeing how CCP or Shregs, whoever, are going to police all forms of colusion, hacking TS/vents? Hacking into forums?

The most heinous crime of all, having the same corp ticker on SiSi! Mother of God.

How you going to stop collusion then Shreegs?
Bruce Vendetta
Final-Vendetta
#291 - 2012-05-26 16:13:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Bruce Vendetta
So, lets break this down.


  • Hydra/Outbreak metagame the previous tournament then through hard-work and skill win said tournament in a undignified fashion.
  • CCP, unable to do anything about the metagaming and final since it's well within tournament rules, create a new rule for the following tournament which gives them carte blanche to ban anyone from the tournament that even looks like they're colluding together or attempting to enter multiple teams.
  • Hydra/Outbreak finds out about the rule change and attempts to communicate with the AT team via email to their official email address in order to ascertain exactly how far two teams can work together during testing. They state multiple times that they have no intention of working together beyond testing (which is only being done because of pilot number issues).
  • The AT team ignores all communications from the two teams.
  • H/O is losing time and patience and decides to try another official source that can be trusted. A senior GM is reached who basically repeats what the rules already say -
    • "Are 2 alliances sparring against each other and testing out ship setups before the tournament itself classed as breaking this rule?"
    "No, as long as those alliances are not working for the same team, so to speak"
  • So far H/O have detailed their intentions to CCP on more than one occasion but received no real reply.
  • Time is running short so they begin testing together anyway. Both teams merge into one corp to make the testing process easier and less time consuming.
  • Another team in a similar situation to H/O (RvB) are contacted by CCP and a solution that allows them to participate is figured out. H/O are still ignored.
  • Hours before the first bidding war is about to commence CCP announces that both H and O are banned because the AT team believes they are attempting a repeat of last year. Their main reason for this belief being that the two teams merged on Singularity into one corporation for testing purposes. Another duo also is banned because they are breaking this new rule however in their case only one of the teams from the duo are banned.
  • It's later revealed that none of the communications between the AT team and H/O were even read and the GM response was not heard of until after the banning occurred.
  • Through mass amounts of posting we learn that the (primary and seemingly only) reason that H/O are both banned is not because they were testing together but because they merged corps on the test server. This (and nothing else) gave CCP the indication that they were attempting a repeat of last year.
  • It's stated multiple times by the AT team that the previous year has nothing to do with the banning.
  • It's also stated that GM's have no say on the rulings of the AT and that any reply is basically useless. Devs are the only trusted source.
  • The AT team state that none of the attempted communication matters anyway, only the actions of the teams matter. That's why they're banned and there is no other reason.


CCP Sreegs wrote:
No but what I do know is what they did last year and it won't be happening again now. You're welcome.


From the way that the AT team is acting and responding many could claim bias and revenge as a motive for banning both teams rather than only one or trying to come to a mutually beneficial solution.

In my humble opinion the complete retardation surrounding this debacle has removed any credibility the AT team had. In addition, with the way Sreegs is replying you can see frustration is the cause for the lack of professionalism. However, I sincerely hope this AT is ruined completely so you can feel the pain of hundreds of wasted man hours just like H/O did.
Time Funnel
Just a side dish
Outspoken Alliance
#292 - 2012-05-26 16:14:38 UTC
Edenmain wrote:

So people not in the same corp but who are working together aren't colluding?

I'm looking forward to seeing how CCP or Shregs, whoever, are going to police all forms of colusion, hacking TS/vents? Hacking into forums?

The most heinous crime of all, having the same corp ticker on SiSi! Mother of God.

How you going to stop collusion then Shreegs?


Here is a man who explains it so much better than I can.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1357442#post1357442

That guy wins at eve. And probably life.
CCP Phantom
C C P
C C P Alliance
#293 - 2012-05-26 21:57:59 UTC
As the discussion runs in circles with all the arguments exchanged, there is nothing much more constructive to add and thus I lock this thread.

As reminder I would like to point to the following official statements:
Devblog about Alliance Tournament X Rules
Teams removed from Competition
Clarification on Hydra/Outbreak and the GM response

CCP Phantom - Senior Community Developer