Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Poetic Stanziel
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
963
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 22:41:00 -
[1] - Quote
from http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.ca/2012/07/at-x-zero-point-teams-out-of-group.html
It seems CCP doesn't quite know how to put together a Rules section for the Alliance Tournament. They're scattering the rules across the tournament website pages. A tad hard to figure out what the rules are if they aren't all in one place.
Hail Mary setups, for extra points, are possible. The rule explaining this is not on the Rules page, but rather on the Format section of the tournament website. Nutty.
Quote:Intentional Handicaps If a team begins the match with less points value worth of ships than their opponent, and wins the match, they score extra ranking points equal to the difference in the two teams' values. (It is the Format page that also details the 25% win bonus.) So, is a zero point team really out of the tournament? Perhaps not. It really depends on whether CCP is allowing any meta-gaming. But I'll touch on that after constructing a possible week two match that could send a zero point team into the group stage.
Test Alliance and No Holds Barred both have zero points. They are fighting each other on Saturday. Let's say Test really really wants to get to the group stage. How? Well, Test builds a 10 point team. No Holds Barred builds a 50 point team. If Test Alliance wins, they earn 50 + 40 = 90 points, plus their 25% win bonus for a total of 112.5 points. Which should be more than enough to get into the group stage.
But, how does a 10 point team win against a 50 point team? With ISK. Test Alliance offers No Holds Barred some large sum, let's say 50B ISK, to put together 50 points of terrible fits, basically to throw the match. Let the 10 points worth of Test ships blow up all 50 points of No Holds ships.
This year, CCP banned alliances from fielding more than one team, the B and C team rule. Which is fine, in my books, since it allows more alliances to participate, who might not have been able to otherwise. According to their rules page, CCP may in fact be banning all obvious meta-gaming is obvious during the tournament, disallowing all thrown matches of the super-obvious variety. The following rule can be found on the Rules page:
Quote:Penalties For Alliance Tournament X the referees can call a match null and void or declare a result if they believe that one of the teams is not competing. This tournament is designed to showcase the talents of pilots and should be entertaining. Potentially banning meta-gaming? Paying other alliances to throw matches is a time-honoured tradition of the Alliance tournament.
As it stands, if No Holds and Test Alliance go head-to-head, 50 point setup versus 50 point setup, neither team stands any chance, whatsoever, of getting into the group stage. Meta-gaming plays an important role here. One team gets to advance (most likely) and the other gets some phat ISK for the alliance war chest.
My interest level in the first day of competition during week two has dropped significantly. The majority of those matches mean nothing. At least with meta-gaming, the spectator is left to wonder whether any backroom funny business has gone on before each match.
Bit of a shame really, if the Test Alliance/No Holds Barred scenario (and scenarios like it) are not allowed to happen. That's taking CCP's paranoia over the Hydra/Outbreak final from last year, a bit too far. The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
Time Funnel
Ars ex Discordia Test Alliance Please Ignore
157
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 23:29:00 -
[2] - Quote
Oh hello there. I see you are taking this opportunity to shamelessly promote your blog. Not a bad article, and we are flattered that we were your example.
If you would like us to be the subject of further writings, feel free to contact me at any time. Really there is no such thing as too much press. |
NinjaTurtle
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
16
|
Posted - 2012.07.07 01:24:00 -
[3] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:I don't know anything about them. It was just an example.
Fine reporting |
Poetic Stanziel
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
964
|
Posted - 2012.07.07 01:42:00 -
[4] - Quote
NinjaTurtle wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:I don't know anything about them. It was just an example. Fine reporting I could have just used Team A vs. Team B as an example. Would that have made the article more valid for you? The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
Poetic Stanziel
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
964
|
Posted - 2012.07.07 01:45:00 -
[5] - Quote
Time Funnel wrote:... shamelessly promote your blog. Is there any other type of promotion? Where possible, I post the entire article, so that you don't have to click through if you don't want too.
The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
NinjaTurtle
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
16
|
Posted - 2012.07.07 05:34:00 -
[6] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote: Would that have made the article more valid for you?
Nope.
|
Abner D00n
Aliastra Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.07 11:47:00 -
[7] - Quote
I was trying to think of some third party metagaming options where a 0 point team pays off a 62.5 point team to throw their match in order to artificially lower the cutoff point, thus allowing the 0 point team to field maybe a 40 or 45 point team, win, look competitive about it, and then squeak through into the next round. But I think that given the way the matches are set up, it would be nearly impossible for it to work, since the 62.5 point team would run a very real risk of not getting through. Eh, who knows though. |
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Angry Mustellid Iron Oxide.
196
|
Posted - 2012.07.07 13:36:00 -
[8] - Quote
CCP haven't banned any of the teams that brought **** set ups for not competing so i'd say it probably just comes down to who you are and how they are feeling on the day.
You'd probably be ok if you made a show of shooting back and if not it'd be worth it for the rage posts from skreegs |
Kil2
Club Bear
286
|
Posted - 2012.07.07 14:22:00 -
[9] - Quote
I'm not a tournament administrator, but I think this is a legitimate concern for today.
I think meta is inevitable and thats probably alright as long as people aren't needlessly wasting viewer time. The new rules are a direct result of people feeling really frustrated with having to watch the finals last year, so my understanding is that the AT team needed a way to respond if that sort of match took place again.
The tournament is caught in an awkward place of needing to provide something thats actually exciting to watch, even though it also loves having the backdoor deals and stories that are typical to eve. If you can do both, I doubt you will get punished. If you conga and use the entire 10 minutes to make me and michael bolton discuss his mustache longer than anyone would ever want us to, you might find yourself in some trouble.
Hope this doesn't end up being an issue, gl to everyone today. |
NinjaTurtle
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
17
|
Posted - 2012.07.07 18:25:00 -
[10] - Quote
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote: rage posts from skreegs pretty sure they medicated him |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 :: [one page] |