| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Ilan Bashar
The Fields of Trenzalore
Random Curse Maggots
0
   |
Posted - 2015.06.12 18:48:33 -
[1] - Quote
Well,
I cannot understand what makes you believe that there is such thing as a random draw.
They made sure to have all them former alliance buddies in the tournament and all the "big names" and thats it.
How likely is it to have like all three PL teams in the tournament (waffelshoardePL)?
CCP is very consequent in drawing conclusions from the past, where two teams from the same alliance fight each other.
They make it three teams, that will improve things, for sure! 
How ridiculous is that.
|
Ilan Bashar
The Fields of Trenzalore
Random Curse Maggots
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.13 09:19:54 -
[2] - Quote
M Foucault wrote:People complaining that a random draw randomly selected alliances that they don't like so it must be favouritism.
Good job, keep on posting.
Yes,
that is the word I am looking for. "Favourism". Thank you Mr. WehavethreeteamsinAT.
I honestly do not think it is corruption, only favourism.
From a mathematical standpoint, It is just remotely probable that some alliances have never ever been "drawn" in the past years, whereas others have ALL their teams in in the same year.
Maybe my math is just wrong? Pls show your calculation!
Otherwise, the fact of having three teams in AT will lead to a lot of fake matches. Or shall I call it teams strategy?
A situation we have seen before and CCP promised to make sure it will not happen again.
*I would like to precise that I take PL as an example, I appreciate the fact that PL is in AT and will provide great entertainment and most likely also beat my favourite crew.
No. I say mathematicaly, it has such a low probability that it allows for conclusions to be drawn.
Plus the broken promise from CCP to make sure multiple teams from the same entity will not be allowed to manipulate AT again.
Plus the fact that CCP made sure to directly assign >90% of the slots.
It is ridiculous. |
Ilan Bashar
The Fields of Trenzalore
Random Curse Maggots
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.13 17:12:16 -
[3] - Quote
Well,
The result is that in an event, called "Alliance Tournament" at least one entety can field several teams, resulting in leaving a lot other alliances teams outside.
So, how can this happen that a lot of alliances are left outside and others can field multiple teams?
IMO there are only two possible reasons:
1. CCP favours this situation
2. CCP has not the competence
I think no. 2 is not the case, as e.g. Fozzie, as an ex-PL member still knows the alliance landscape very well.
Are you in disagreement with me about the fact, that some entetys field several teams while others are left outside?
Are you in disagreement with me that several teams of the same entity will lead to a lot of fake matches? |
Ilan Bashar
The Fields of Trenzalore
Random Curse Maggots
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.15 16:43:38 -
[4] - Quote
Hello CCP,
thank you for your video. I will comment on the video itself later.
I think a process can be consided as a black box and be judged by the result.
The result is that some enteties have multiple teams. This is not what Alliance Tournament means to me personally, to me one enity has one team and not three official ones and whoknows how many alt teams. Eve is about winning, not fair competition. I thought AT was an attempt to promote EvE through esports, so fair competition a certain degree (aside spying ect.). I do acklowledge CCPs position that it is not - and exploiting the rules to the max is fair game. I hope CCP is aware that this disqualifies AT as an esports event.
60 of 64 teams came into the competition with no effort whatsoever, be it spacepew or pay money
Only four places are open for teams not being favoured or lucky enough.
Looking at the list of former serious contenders who will not be able to participate and the above explained situation, I conclude that there is enough evidence to say that :
The qualification process has delivered a very bad result.
I think it is simply a very bad job to:
*define and execute a new/modified process without review to spot the process flaws beforehand
*achnowledge the obvious flaws but refuse to act on them
*not to react on some stretching and bending the rules
So now to your video:
It is for me just the proof of my acusation of very unreflected and poor work.
I can make the following claims (which I do not even mean serious!): Not all the names had been put into the box. The video was simply shoot several times until the result suited you. Oh yeah I dont trust you and that surprises you.. only if you did not think enough beforehand.
Please specify the correct contact in customer service where I can complain about the bad work and discuss the consequences I draw from it.
|
| |
|