These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Teams Removed From Competition

First post
Author
Zastrow
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#41 - 2012-05-24 19:10:58 UTC
Hydra / outbreak were told, "hey stop colluding" and they did it anyway. They basically thumbed their noses at CCP and the tournament rules. I wont be shedding any tears for them
Zarathushtra
0utbreak
#42 - 2012-05-24 19:13:12 UTC
I would like to point out that we have asked you about our situation and our training.

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


The following was your response:

Quote:
Hi,
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.
With kind regards,
Senior GM xxxxxxxx
The EVE Online Customer Support Team


Theres no way you can claim that Outbreak and Hydra "are pretty much the same people, but created a second alliance to try and stack the deck". This probably easy enough to verify aswell from account details and such.

Of course we will get everyone in one corp for the training in Sisi because of the logistical nightmare it is.

Do you feel that it is fair that you ban us after we have acted based on that response from Senior GM?

Furthermore, I personally sent an e-mail to the tourney team some 3 weeks ago asking, or begging even, that if you gona ban us from competing you would do so early own, so I wont make people waste time practicing for something we cant participate in. I received no response whatsoever.

It is obviously true that we and Hydra have the same goal. Do some alliances enter the tournament to finish 31st? Our goal was to win and work very hard to do so.

Im sure that the quality of the tournament will go up when u remove two best teams. It, for some reason, goes against my logic thought.

Last year we played by rules that you had set, and everyone got outplayed (why cant people see that our match against Darkside was the actual final). This year we asked you to be specific so we would be playing by the rules again, and hopefully win. We do as you say and you still ban us.

While we made many mistakes last year, regarding the EVE community, we did not break any rules. Nor we have this year.

I mean look at the response you gave us and ask yourselve is this right? Unreal.
Garmon
Gods Holy Light Bringing You're Penance
#43 - 2012-05-24 19:14:54 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Spitfire
As you can imagine, I'm quite annoyed by this, we have already spent a lot of time and effort for ATX, and before we even started testing, I've tried to be very open with CCP, asking if what we're doing is okay and I tried to be clear about our intent for this year.

While we were spending hundreds of hours preparing, we got the all clear 11 days after our first e-mail through a petition. So we were under the impression that we were doing nothing wrong, if we had known what we were doing was wrong, we would have not tested together.

I also call foul over the fact that we are left with no options, RVB and PL are left with options - and rightfully so.



CCP Sreegs wrote:
Unfortunately Hydra and Outbreak are working from the same playbook as last year, practicing together in a single corporation on the test server in a single wormhole. We view them as they represent themselves, which mirrors how they represented themselves last year, as a single entity. For that reason they are barred from competition having entered the tournament masquerading as two units while functioning in reality as one.


Exactly 3 weeks ago to this day, I declared hydra + outbreak's intention for this year in an e-mail, asking for clarification, and for permission if we were allowed to test with each other when numbers were scarce. I'd like to emphasize the only reason we are in the same corporation, is because when we test, it's in a wormhole, and we need to be able to give roles to people so they can fit their ships. Many alliances have been testing with each other for ATX, and it has been like that for years. I thought we were in the clear after being very open to you, here is the e-mail I sent to [email protected] on the 03/05, 3 weeks ago

Garmon wrote:
Regarding Hydra and 0utbreak, our only intention this year in terms of working together is to test with each other on Singularity for times when more numbers are needed.

Last year, the relationship between the two of us was much closer than what we intend for this year. Last year, both teams acted as one entity. We created two teams for the primary purpose of having enough to practice and the secondary purpose of winning first and second together so that PL could not. Once we got to the final we made several mistakes and against our intentions the finals as a spectator event were ruined.

However for this year, even before the rules were announced, we have wanted to do things differently. Hydra and 0utbreak have been different groups on TQ for the past year and will have different people leading the teams this year. We do not intend to work together or colaborate in any way in the tournament matches starting on June 30th. We only intend to test together in the preparation through the medium of testing on SiSi. Even this we wouldn't do if getting 24 people on the test server wasn't difficult as a result of our alliances being much smaller than the large ones.

Assuming that there's no collaboration between our alliances in any way in the actual tournament, apart from testing, are we classed in the A/B team criteria?

Thanks for your time


On the 12th, 9 days later, I sent a follow up e-mail after receiving no response ;

Garmon wrote:
Hello CCP Loxy,

We are putting a lot of effort in our tournament run this year. However we are very concerned that we might be breaking CCP's interpretations of certain rules without being aware of it. We want to follow the rules completely and contribute to making it an event that the Eve community appreciates and looks forward to.

We have described our intentions to CCP in our previous e-mail and we would like to know as soon as possible if what we are doing is alright. Specifically the rules are vague about how much collaboration constitues an A and B team situation. We suspect that there is no issue with testing against another team since multiple other hopeful entrants have been practicing together on SiSi this year. Again, however, we want to be sure.

If we could get a response as soon as possible it would put all of our minds at ease.

Thanks,
Hydra Reloaded



On the 14th, we sent this petition :

Pyrosoft wrote:
Hi,
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.


We got this reply :

Senior GM wrote:


Please do not post GM correspondence on the forums. Spitfire

I like Duncan
Shamis Orzoz
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#44 - 2012-05-24 19:15:09 UTC
What?

Sniggwaffe are not working with PL in testing, or sharing pilots. I don't think the same can be said for Hydra/Outbreak, but it seems like one of them should be able to compete.

claire xxx
IronPig
Sev3rance
#45 - 2012-05-24 19:17:39 UTC
claire xxx wrote:
In the interest of fairness shouldn't the punishment for both Hydra and Pandemic Legion be equal?

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with what's happening, but if teams are being banned because of A-B team scenario then the punishment should be the same for all.

If you're going to ban one team then ban one team from both alliances. If you're going to ban two teams then ban two teams from both alliances. Doing otherwise smacks of favoritism and doesn't leave CCP looking impartial or fair.

Just my 0.02 Isk


Case in point:

“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.”
Zowie Powers
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2012-05-24 19:20:28 UTC
I expected CCP to pull this, but not to do it while simultaneously green lighting PL to do it's A-B team thing again. That bit did surprise me.

ATX: The best of the rest.

Tertiacero
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#47 - 2012-05-24 19:21:12 UTC
Wow ccp, still a bit mad about last year?

While I understand what you're doing and why it is a bit ridiculous. Hydra are not only the reigning champs, they're also very good small gang pvpers and there is really little reason to not allow them to field one team.

It would also go a long way toward not starting this tournament with a 'meh' taste in everybody's mouth.
Qlfon
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#48 - 2012-05-24 19:21:46 UTC
HAHAHAHAH NICE!
CCP You making new rules for RvB and then you ban TWO TOP Teams, even if they ask You about training together? You are stupid, rly.
ATM remaining in AT X teams should declare support for Hydra and 0utbreak. teams and say they wont get involved in AT X unless both teams (Hydra and 0utbreak.) can get in also.
Richard Stallmanu Stallmania
Perkone
Caldari State
#49 - 2012-05-24 19:22:37 UTC
Garmon wrote:

Senior GM wrote:
GM xxx Sent - 5/14/2012 10:39:00 AM Hi,

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.

With kind regards,
Senior GM xxx
The EVE Online Customer Support Team


Garmon's group of Damning Evidence hit's CCP (Unfairness) doing 1337.0 damage.
Grog Drinker
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#50 - 2012-05-24 19:22:46 UTC
These emails from hydra are pretty damning ccp. You had the time to make this rather lengthy post and deliberate for "hours" about this topic but didn't have the time to respond to a three week old email?Shocked
Rojo Mojo
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#51 - 2012-05-24 19:23:23 UTC
claire xxx wrote:
claire xxx wrote:
In the interest of fairness shouldn't the punishment for both Hydra and Pandemic Legion be equal?

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with what's happening, but if teams are being banned because of A-B team scenario then the punishment should be the same for all.

If you're going to ban one team then ban one team from both alliances. If you're going to ban two teams then ban two teams from both alliances. Doing otherwise smacks of favoritism and doesn't leave CCP looking impartial or fair.

Just my 0.02 Isk


Case in point:

“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.”


Removal of the main alliance would be unfair as clarification to this rule was submitted before signups began. Since there was no response we signed up anyways hoping to get in and be ruled eligible.
Florestan Bronstein
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#52 - 2012-05-24 19:26:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Florestan Bronstein
Richard Stallmanu Stallmania wrote:
So two alliances create "alt teams".

Pandemic Legion - Pandemic Legion/YOUR VOTES DONT COUNT

HYDRA RELOADED - HYDRA-RELOADED/Outbreak.

you misunderstand the PL situation.

Sniggwaffe is a recruitment/feeder corp for PL - people spend 3 months to a year in Sniggwaffe before "graduating" into PL, this structure has been in place for a very long time and was not set up with the alliance tournament in mind.
Sniggwaffe is never part of the PL alliance as it is generally not trusted (due to low recruitment standards, op-sec concerns, etc), waffles change their alliance name every now and then for giggles but are never part of any "real" alliance.

As graduations had been held off until after the alliance tournament no waffles can just "join up into one team" and many of the AT pilots for Sniggwaffe are far from graduation anyways - even leaving CCP's restrictions on alliance changes aside there is no way PL would let them into their team.

PL members don't have access to the forum used by Sniggwaffe for AT coordination. Waffles naturally don't know anything about PL's preparations.

This decision by CCP is not entirely surprising and is understandable - the division between training corp and actual alliance is not everywhere as clear as it is in PL and a precedent (with the new rule in place) could have led to exploits in future tournaments.

The decision sucks as a lot of time, effort and hopes had already been invested into AT preparation but I don't think there's any point in raging over a decision by CCP that is both reasonable and final (even if it doesn't feel fair).
Tyrrax Thorrk
Guiding Hand Social Club
#53 - 2012-05-24 19:28:10 UTC
I found your mistake Garmon!
"Of course we will get everyone in one corp for the training in Sisi because of the logistical nightmare it is."

that's not a very "seperate teams" kinda thing to do
nobody to blame but yourself really
Rer Eirikr
The Scope
#54 - 2012-05-24 19:28:43 UTC
Let either Hydra or Outbreak participate, or let them merge into one team.

Their level of skill the in the tournament is very high, and it'd be a damn shame to not see them in Alliance Tournament X of all things.

The SniggWaffe ban I can understand, I'm still SadSadSad about it, but I can understand it.

Best of luck to this year's competitors o7
Richard Stallmanu Stallmania
Perkone
Caldari State
#55 - 2012-05-24 19:28:51 UTC
Florestan Bronstein wrote:
Richard Stallmanu Stallmania wrote:
So two alliances create "alt teams".

Pandemic Legion - Pandemic Legion/YOUR VOTES DONT COUNT

HYDRA RELOADED - HYDRA-RELOADED/Outbreak.

you misunderstand the PL situation.

Sniggwaffe is a recruitment/feeder corp for PL - people spend 3 months to a year in Sniggwaffe before "graduating" into PL, this structure has been in place for a very long time and was not set up with the alliance tournament in mind.
Sniggwaffe is never part of the PL alliance as it is generally not trusted (due to low recruitment standards, op-sec concerns, etc), waffles change their alliance name every now and then for giggles but are never part of any "real" alliance.

As graduations had been held off until after the alliance tournament no waffles can just "join up into one team" and many of the AT pilots for Sniggwaffe are far from graduation anyways - even leaving CCP's restrictions on alliance changes aside there is no way PL would let them into their team.

PL members don't have access to the forum used by Sniggwaffe for AT coordination. Waffles naturally don't know anything about PL's preparations.

This decision by CCP is not entirely surprising and understandable - the division between training corp and actual alliance is not everywhere as clear as it is in PL and a precedent (with the new rule in place) could have led to exploits in future tournaments.

The decision sucks as a lot of time, effort and hopes had already been invested into AT preparation but I don't think there's any point in raging over a decision by CCP that is both reasonable and final (even if it doesn't feel fair).



"we cannot consider them anything other than a B team for Pandemic Legion"

From the first post in thread.
claire xxx
IronPig
Sev3rance
#56 - 2012-05-24 19:29:34 UTC
Rojo Mojo wrote:
claire xxx wrote:
claire xxx wrote:
In the interest of fairness shouldn't the punishment for both Hydra and Pandemic Legion be equal?

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with what's happening, but if teams are being banned because of A-B team scenario then the punishment should be the same for all.

If you're going to ban one team then ban one team from both alliances. If you're going to ban two teams then ban two teams from both alliances. Doing otherwise smacks of favoritism and doesn't leave CCP looking impartial or fair.

Just my 0.02 Isk


Case in point:

“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.”


Removal of the main alliance would be unfair as clarification to this rule was submitted before signups began. Since there was no response we signed up anyways hoping to get in and be ruled eligible.


Rojo,

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the actual punishment. Just saying if CCP isn't going to follow through and ban PL (as the "main alliance") (or Goons and any of their A-B teams, and anyone else doing it) then they shouldn't be banning Hydra as the "main alliance."

CCP needs to be 100% impartial and enforce rules and punishment equally.
Ayeson
Hard Knocks Inc.
Hard Knocks Citizens
#57 - 2012-05-24 19:34:15 UTC
Lazarus Telraven
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#58 - 2012-05-24 19:36:01 UTC
claire xxx wrote:
Rojo Mojo wrote:
claire xxx wrote:
claire xxx wrote:
In the interest of fairness shouldn't the punishment for both Hydra and Pandemic Legion be equal?

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with what's happening, but if teams are being banned because of A-B team scenario then the punishment should be the same for all.

If you're going to ban one team then ban one team from both alliances. If you're going to ban two teams then ban two teams from both alliances. Doing otherwise smacks of favoritism and doesn't leave CCP looking impartial or fair.

Just my 0.02 Isk


Case in point:

“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.”


Removal of the main alliance would be unfair as clarification to this rule was submitted before signups began. Since there was no response we signed up anyways hoping to get in and be ruled eligible.


Rojo,

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the actual punishment. Just saying if CCP isn't going to follow through and ban PL (as the "main alliance") (or Goons and any of their A-B teams, and anyone else doing it) then they shouldn't be banning Hydra as the "main alliance."

CCP needs to be 100% impartial and enforce rules and punishment equally.


Just to clarify, GSF has only entered a single team into the alliance tourney it is hard enough for us to get a single team into the tourney (see last year)
Duncan Tanner
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#59 - 2012-05-24 19:36:19 UTC
Tyrrax Thorrk wrote:
I found your mistake Garmon!
"Of course we will get everyone in one corp for the training in Sisi because of the logistical nightmare it is."

that's not a very "seperate teams" kinda thing to do
nobody to blame but yourself really


Good job quoting out of context. Still mad about getting outplayed for your Adrestia I see.

Any training done in a wormhole requires everyone to be in the same corporation for using the hangers. All of PL is in one corp on SiSi all of Darkside is in one corp on SiSi.

However you miss the point entirely where we ASKED if we could do this BEFORE we did it and they said NOTHING apart from the GM who said that we could do it.

.

Rer Eirikr
The Scope
#60 - 2012-05-24 19:37:25 UTC
claire xxx wrote:
Rojo,

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the actual punishment. Just saying if CCP isn't going to follow through and ban PL (as the "main alliance") (or Goons and any of their A-B teams, and anyone else doing it) then they shouldn't be banning Hydra as the "main alliance."

CCP needs to be 100% impartial and enforce rules and punishment equally.


The correct thing to do here is to unban either Hydra or Outbreak, having both teams banned is just silly.