These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 page12
 

Clarification on some details of the "collusion" rules

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kat Ayclism
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#21 - 2015-08-29 16:45:14 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
lolcorpholder alt wrote:
Would sharing AT ships between teams fall under this rule and if not, where can we report possible breaches of this rule?

Teams are allowed to use their ingame resources as they see fit, including lending/sharing ships if they choose.

So you're basically taking a poop on the meaning of the word "collusion" and allowing teams to A, B, C+ teams. This is the dumbest thing, and we will abuse it next year cause this is asininely ridiculous.
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#22 - 2015-08-30 17:36:26 UTC
I would think house rules would apply here

Warlord and Camel have fielded NUMEROUS AT ships against people, but have NOT fielded them against each other....

If they face each other again and have mirror setups and no AT ships, that has got to raise some flags according to this gem:



"Setting up "house rules" for actual matches in the Alliance Tournament will be considered collusion and is not allowed."
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2015-08-30 20:34:49 UTC
Flick Narbotan wrote:
Does this mean that awoxing one's own team during a fight is banned?

that has been for a while from my understanding.

Founder of Violet Squadron, a small gang NPSI community! Mail me for more information.

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie's Space Mediation Service!
Malakai Asamov
Van Diemen's Demise
Northern Coalition.
#24 - 2015-08-31 04:51:35 UTC
Kenneth Feld wrote:
I would think house rules would apply here

Warlord and Camel have fielded NUMEROUS AT ships against people, but have NOT fielded them against each other....

If they face each other again and have mirror setups and no AT ships, that has got to raise some flags according to this gem:



"Setting up "house rules" for actual matches in the Alliance Tournament will be considered collusion and is not allowed."


Why would you field AT ships in the grand final? you've already won an obscene amount of isk and power for the next tournament.
Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
#25 - 2015-08-31 14:17:05 UTC
None of the doomsday predictions came true and we had a great finals with a few AT price ships down even. I am totally OK with how it went down and I hope Im not the only one. Not getting external feedback about your strategies and setups is kinda dumb imo.

RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
MissBolyai
ElitistOps
Deepwater Hooligans
#26 - 2015-09-15 02:50:04 UTC  |  Edited by: MissBolyai
Baali Tekitsu wrote:
None of the doomsday predictions came true and we had a great finals with a few AT price ships down even. I am totally OK with how it went down and I hope Im not the only one. Not getting external feedback about your strategies and setups is kinda dumb imo.


you sure?

CCP Fozzie wrote:
If there are any questions please let us know.


I've a question for you. Did Hydramel collude in your official opinion?
Lovey Dovey
Doomheim
#27 - 2015-10-06 19:18:39 UTC
Baali Tekitsu wrote:
None of the doomsday predictions came true


You wanna reconsider this view? :)
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#28 - 2015-10-07 14:55:31 UTC
Baali Tekitsu wrote:
None of the doomsday predictions came true and we had a great finals with a few AT price ships down even. I am totally OK with how it went down and I hope Im not the only one. Not getting external feedback about your strategies and setups is kinda dumb imo.


Top kek

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Previous page12