Backstage - OOC Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

The Blood Raiders are part of an ancient cultist faction called Sani Sabik, which first appeared on Amarr Prime thousands of years ago? Read more here.

Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic: Alliance Tournament X  (Read 4407 times)

Creep

  • Omelette
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 272
Re: Alliance Tournament X
« Reply #15 on: 26 May 2012, 16:44 »

You guy's have got it wrong re: YVDC. That's Snigg's recruitment corp, and doesn't (read: almost never) even fly with PL. Most of Sniggwaffe can be found yarring around lowsec while PL is playing :Titans: in 0.0. You can be in Sniggwaffe for a loooong time before being let in to Sniggerdly.
As far as I know, they don't share comms, intel, or even FCs. Only the CEO/directors have alts in Sniggerdly, to my knowledge.

YVDC isn't trusted by PL (because of the sheer amount of spies/awoxers who are let in), and – while I'm not a Snigg member – I bet both sides were itching to be pitted against each-other in the Tourny, for the sole purpose of proving themselves against the other in a no-holds-barred beatdown.

Regarding Hydra/0utbreak...I think banning both of them was a little harsh, given that a senior GM had cleared their practices without consulting the Alliance Team. Also, since they're the Defending Champion and Runner Up, respectively. But yeah, they weren't exactly doing it by the book, and really ought to have known better. But all the same, one of them ought to be allowed in.
« Last Edit: 26 May 2012, 16:47 by Creep »
Logged

Esna Pitoojee

  • Keeper of the Harem
  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2095
Re: Alliance Tournament X
« Reply #16 on: 28 May 2012, 19:29 »

CCP seems to be taking the tact that any major link between alliances in the AT - even if they are not explicitly cooperating or coordinating in the tournament, is grounds for removal of one team. So, whether PL viewed YVDC as an alt alliance or merely a more readily available pool for more selective recruitment, they were out.
Logged
I like the implications of Gallentians being punched in the face by walking up to a Minmatar as they so freely use another person's culture as a fad.

Vikarion

  • Guest
Re: Alliance Tournament X
« Reply #17 on: 29 May 2012, 01:10 »

On one hand, I do feel a tiny little bit of sympathy for Hydra and Outbreak. On the other hand, I really don't feel all that much at all. They were quite happily pushing the envelope, and the envelope got returned. Were I them, I would have kept 15 systems away from the other team, and to hell with practicing "against each other".

I mean, if you know CCP is not happy with you, and you know that the rule is there specifically for and because of you, do you then try to go ahead and do remotely shady things anyway? Apparently so, but really, who didn't see this coming?
Logged

Lyn Farel

  • Guest
Re: Alliance Tournament X
« Reply #18 on: 29 May 2012, 04:27 »

What I find weird is that CCP always encourage and endorse all the worse tricks and metagame in their game, and at the same time seem surprised to see that people do it with their official events too. Not to say that I find one of the other reprehensible, but I find this a little bit schyzophrenic, at best.

Now though, all these alliances actually looked for it and got kicked according to CCP new policies. Fools. Always somebody to prods the limits, they remind me of animals continuously testing the electrified fence around even if it is obviously dangerous.
Logged

Victoria Stecker

  • Pod Captain
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 752
Re: Alliance Tournament X
« Reply #19 on: 29 May 2012, 11:08 »

What I find weird is that CCP always encourage and endorse all the worse tricks and metagame in their game,

Once in a while they punish it – recall that they booted most of a wormhole alliance for abusing an exploit that gave their ships max range and tracking, making for some very scary blaster boats.
Logged

Lyn Farel

  • Guest
Re: Alliance Tournament X
« Reply #20 on: 29 May 2012, 11:29 »

Well, they always punish exploits, but not metagaming. And here its mostly about metagaming agreements no ?
Logged

Silas Vitalia

  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3397
Re: Alliance Tournament X
« Reply #21 on: 29 May 2012, 13:03 »

What I find weird is that CCP always encourage and endorse all the worse tricks and metagame in their game,

Once in a while they punish it – recall that they booted most of a wormhole alliance for abusing an exploit that gave their ships max range and tracking, making for some very scary blaster boats.

I remember that! Max range 100% wrecking shots for every shot fired. Very nasty. I think R&K eventually took them to school regardless... there's a long video out there somewhere about the campaign...

Logged

kalaratiri

  • Kalalalaakiota
  • The Mods
  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2107
  • Shes mad but shes magic, theres no lie in her fire
Re: Alliance Tournament X
« Reply #22 on: 29 May 2012, 13:06 »

Eh, clarion call 3 was not as good as I hoped. It does show them beating AHARM, but only after being taken apart by their 'supergun' fleet the first time they tried. And it was far more of a propaganda vid than it should have been. Anatomy of a fight, showing the details of their carrier tactics was far better for rooks and kings :)
Logged


"Eve roleplayers scare me." - The Mittani

Gymir Asaadan

  • Clonejack
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 48
Re: Alliance Tournament X
« Reply #23 on: 29 May 2012, 15:05 »

I remember that! Max range 100% wrecking shots for every shot fired. Very nasty. I think R&K eventually took them to school regardless... there's a long video out there somewhere about the campaign...
R&K only started winning fights in the home WH of AHARM after CCP fixed the exploit they were using.

CC3 was garbage in comparison to CC1-2, didn't show anything really exciting, or new, only that they lie about the numbers they had, I recall a fight where they are vague about the ships they have on the field, and then found a KM from that very fight and it turns out they had somewhere along the lines of 20+ Strat cruisers in on it. vs few subcaps, they were never really in danger, despite the video making it seem like death lurked around every corner.

ANYWAYS, back to AT 10, funny to see how little the last slots went for, CVA made it in at last call, good job, good luck to all. Should be some good fights this year.

I'm surprised there is no Star Fraction entry.
Logged
An insincere and evil friend is more to be feared than a wild beast; a wild beast may wound your body, but an evil friend will wound your mind.
-Buddha

Valdezi

  • Pod Captain
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 587
    • Stories by me
Re: Alliance Tournament X
« Reply #24 on: 29 May 2012, 17:25 »


I'm surprised there is no Star Fraction entry.

SF seems to be pretty quiet atm. Haven't heard from them in a while.
Logged

Esna Pitoojee

  • Keeper of the Harem
  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2095
Re: Alliance Tournament X
« Reply #25 on: 29 May 2012, 17:38 »

We've been seeing a little bit of them in the warzone in the past couple weeks.

Actually, that raises the question - are ANY of the alliances in AT10 militia alliances?
Logged
I like the implications of Gallentians being punched in the face by walking up to a Minmatar as they so freely use another person's culture as a fad.

Jade Constantine

  • Anarchist Adventurer
  • Omelette
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 432
  • Nothing ever burns down by itself
    • The Star Fraction Communications Portal
Re: Alliance Tournament X
« Reply #26 on: 29 May 2012, 20:47 »

First one since the 2nd we haven't entered :(

Truthfully though a lot of us lost faith with the tourmanent last time round - the way the finals turned into a metagaming-fest ending in an embarrassing televised circle-jerk made it seem a waste of time. In addition does seem that as the tournament has become more and more serious business with huge multi trillion isk prizes for the winners the cost of entry (in terms of effort and practise time) has become far greater than a small alliance can successfully manage.

Add that to the current state of SF (not very big at all) and the reality that we probably couldn't find 10 people to form a team let alone make 20 for in-alliance practise ment an entry would be a complete waste of isk.

Still, I wish I was fighting. Makes me sad we're not there.
Logged

There are some arenas so corrupt that the only clean acts possible are nihilistic

Bacchanalian

  • Omelette
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 449
Re: Alliance Tournament X
« Reply #27 on: 21 Jul 2012, 20:04 »

Rawr
Logged

Gessenier

  • Guest
Re: Alliance Tournament X
« Reply #28 on: 21 Jul 2012, 21:40 »

Actually, that raises the question - are ANY of the alliances in AT10 militia alliances?

Percussive Pizza Time Diplomacy has a lot of ex-FDU pilots in it, but no, I don't think any of the AT10 alliances are currently in FW.
Logged

Bacchanalian

  • Omelette
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 449
Re: Alliance Tournament X
« Reply #29 on: 22 Jul 2012, 11:35 »

In addition does seem that as the tournament has become more and more serious business with huge multi trillion isk prizes for the winners the cost of entry (in terms of effort and practise time) has become far greater than a small alliance can successfully manage.

For that matter, the actual isk cost is a huge barrier as well.  We spent 51b total on setups, not to mention the entry fee and roughly 22b on the auction to get in.  So in total we dropped nearly 75b on the tournament this time around.  Some of that will come back to us as we liquidate unused hardwirings and ships that we had purchased in preparation of a run all the way to the final, but figure acutal expenditures will probably balance out around 65b.  That's not an insignificant amount of isk for a small alliance.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3