no defending champion to beat is p. lame :O

Perhaps you should have answered our multiple petitions and e-mails asking whether we were allowed to test together before we even started testing?

Will Goons and TEST also be disqualified because they also test together and are blue to each other?

Will the multiple other teams that test against each other on SiSi also be banned?

Please help me out here. Thanks.

Perhaps you should have answered our multiple petitions and e-mails asking whether we were allowed to test together before we even started testing?

Will Goons and TEST also be disqualified because they also test together and are blue to each other?

Will the multiple other teams that test against each other on SiSi also be banned?

Please help me out here. Thanks.

So two alliances create "alt teams".

Pandemic Legion - Pandemic Legion/YOUR VOTES DONT COUNT

HYDRA RELOADED - HYDRA-RELOADED/Outbreak.


Yet you ban both HYDRA teams, but only one Pandemic Legion team, meaning all the "A" rank players from both of their teams will just join up into one team.

I personally hold no "beef" with Pandemic Legion, but it appears that CCP is applying different punishments for the same offense.

That will surely provide a more competitive Alliance Tournament, where you ban all the competition to one of the highest ranked teams who is guilty of the very same things you punished the other teams for.

Wow.

I'm rather speechless.


P.S. My condolences to the HYDRA team(s), you guys are a step above the rest, too bad you don't have Dev alts in your alliance.

I would appreciate some direction and clarification regarding the roles for this yearGÇÖs alliance tournament GÇô specifically GÇ£We will be actively removing those alliances that try and add a GÇÿBGÇÖ or GÇÿCGÇÖ 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.GÇ¥
I cannot disagree with the policy, but I would like to be clear as to what constitutes a GÇ£BGÇ¥ 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

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

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.

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

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

Hi,
I would appreciate some direction and clarification regarding the roles for this yearGÇÖs alliance tournament GÇô specifically GÇ£We will be actively removing those alliances that try and add a GÇÿBGÇÖ or GÇÿCGÇÖ 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.GÇ¥
I cannot disagree with the policy, but I would like to be clear as to what constitutes a GÇ£BGÇ¥ 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.

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

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:

GÇ£We will be actively removing those alliances that try and add a GÇÿBGÇÖ or GÇÿCGÇÖ 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.GÇ¥

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).

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.

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

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.