| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 13 post(s) |
RedClaws
Amarr
Dragon's Rage
Intrepid Crossing
   |
Posted - 2007.05.23 13:35:00 -
[1]
Nice rules : I hope it gets interesting.
But please please reconsider the usage of implants. It only allows the big alliances to win since the small ones just can't compete due to the lack of isk.
Normally I'd like my own alliance to join in but with the current implant rule we might aswell not even sign up since we have no chance to win without implants
Also please keep a close eye on "phantom alliances".
With this I mean alliances that suddenly get "revived" 1 week before the tournament.
If I remember correctly quite a few alliances did this so they had multiple groups fighting under different banners while they actually were from the same alliance.
I know it'll be hard to check but please do try.
Thanks
|
RedClaws
Amarr
Dragon's Rage
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 18:44:00 -
[2]
Well outbreak isn't in an alliance but lets say that 10 of us from IRC join the tournament but we make a new alliance called IRC2 and put 10 members inthere that will also join the tourny.
That gives us a clear advantage over other alliance that don't "cheat" since we can afford to lose and still have our B-Team
|
RedClaws
Amarr
Dragon's Rage
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.05.24 13:35:00 -
[3]
Edited by: RedClaws on 24/05/2007 13:35:35
 Originally by: Waragha
Sure if you can afford the isk for two teams, even then, with these extremely random rules you have a very little chance of winning.
Thats my point : I'd like small alliance to be able to compete as well. Saying that creating multiple teams is ok if you have the money is even counterproductive to my intentions.
Originally by: Waragha
Also you can only chose THOSE 10 people (vs. all the alliances that can choose from several thousand people).
Well in my example I did indeed say that 10 people would be moving but it can be 100 people just as easily.
Originally by: Waragha
Nobody's ever "covered their bases" by having two teams, only lost money. The spare BoB teams or what ever havent made it past the qualifiers, sooo.. I really can't see your point? Do you have any facts to back up your opinion?
I'm not so sure about the "only lost money" statement. Lets say team A has a bad day and loses: that would be the end of the alliance's participation in the tourny.
Now if the alliance also had a team B they can still keep participating : you can't deny that it's unfair to have a second chance compared to alliances that only field 1 team, right?
The fact that the spare BoB teams never made it far doesn't matter to be honest. It's the principle thats wrong. I'm also not quite sure with what you mean about backing up my opinion. It's my opinion and I'm quite sure I have it 
But just to set things right : this isn't directed at BoB personally because IIRC there were plenty of big alliances doing the same.
Originally by: Waragha
The last two alliances have hit no where NEAR max allowed teams. What was it? Forty last year?
And remember the sweeping forfeiths / teams not showing up the year before that? Yeah that was fun :) I think we all enjoyed the waiting for teams who where *** enough not to send a mail saying they wheren't coming.
The forfeiths aren't that much of an issue anymore due to last year's deposit rule.
I do however understand your worries that not allowing multiple teams to participate will cause the number of teams to drop considerable.
I'm hoping that if this rule (not being allowed to use "phantom alliances") when combined with the "no pirate implants" rule, would encourage more smaller alliances to participate.
|
| |
|