| Author |
Topic |
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire |
Posted - 2009.07.23 11:53:00 - [ 181]
 Originally by: Gul Tural
Is it me or aint the 4 factional warfare alliances in that list?
FW teams didn't get entry this time. |
Honest Smedley |
Posted - 2009.07.23 12:14:00 - [ 182]
On the reoccurring topic of minimum Alliance size to qualify...
While any minimum size is easily circumvented, it is slightly odd that CAOD has a minimum alliance size to post while the alliance tournament has no such minimum. |
Yaay
Fusion Enterprises Ltd |
Posted - 2009.07.23 14:39:00 - [ 183]
Originally by: Yaay
Edited by: Yaay on 20/07/2009 20:47:48
Originally by: CCP Atropos
Out of interest, what method of teams selection would you all have gone for, and what are the benefits over both the random selection, and the previous 'window' method.
128 team tourney.
all alliances over 500 members can get an auto bid if they so choose... any remaining spots to to a random pool.
Day one of the tourney is a random draw of competition. 1 loss and done resulting in the final 64 draw. Would be less matches still than the old style tournament where you had the points system for 4-6 team groups.
day 1 matches would be 5 v 5 or 10 v 10 frigate only tournament with ships of choice. Points could be awarded 1.2.3 with t2 being 2 points, t1 being 1 point, and those recon friggies being 3 points. 10 points total allowed. Ring could be 50km radius. Match time limited to 8 minutes each. All of this in an effort to help speed up day 1 matches. Since you aren't gonna broadcast it, you could probably run 4 matches at a time.
final round of 64 would be broken into 8 segments, each getting a 1-8 seeding. Seedings are based on points remaining from frigate matches.
This would cater to both big alliances, not all of whom would compete and smaller entities who would fill the void. Day 1 would be a good measure to quickly weed out bad contenders and still provide a chance for people to participate.
As a follow up to this idea, there are currently 62 alliances over 500 members. if the devs were to run full length matches every round 1 at a time, they'd avg 20 min in duration with 128 matches over the course of the tournament. That would equate to about 4.7 hrs each day over 3 sets of 3 day weekends. If they used my method for the first round, that number could drop to 2 days per weekend or potential eliminate a weekend of need. It would provide half the slots to the larger alliances (assuming every one of them registered on time and had intentions in the first place), while still providing equal representation for the smaller guys. The only difference being the auto qualification. Each season the minimum qualification rule could be adjusted so that half the participants were offered to the larger entities. In no way does this break the spirit of the games, but it does fix the one constant problem that's existed over the years, which is that larger groups who wish to enter should have that advantage as they represent a large chunk of what is pvp in this game. A second addendum to add is that the top 16 teams each year auto qualify for the next year assuring that If smaller groups prove themselves in a tournament, they are assured placement in the next. |
Saul Reaver
Oberon Incorporated
Morsus Mihi |
Posted - 2009.07.23 15:38:00 - [ 184]
|
Suboran
Gallente
Best Path Inc.
Cascade Imminent |
Posted - 2009.07.23 15:55:00 - [ 185]
Edited by: Suboran on 23/07/2009 15:56:00 Originally by: CCP Atropos
Out of interest, what method of teams selection would you all have gone for, and what are the benefits over both the random selection, and the previous 'window' method.
first 32 handpicked from the biggest, best pvp and spaceholding alliances, then 4 fw teams and 28 randoms. also include a 6 months minimum age for alliances to stop people spamming with new alliances created with sole purpose of entry |
pandoran |
Posted - 2009.07.23 16:04:00 - [ 186]
thats not fair to the small teams that get together just for the tourney the way to go is this
no refund on enter in or out
slot selling against the rules
this would stop peeps adding to the hat and entering for profit
|
Vindol |
Posted - 2009.07.23 19:25:00 - [ 187]
Originally by: pandoran
thats not fair to the small teams that get together just for the tourney the way to go is this
The clue is in the title "ALLIANCE TOURNAMENT" not "groups of people put together to win a competition tournament" |
Dlardrageth
ANZAC ALLIANCE
|
Posted - 2009.07.23 21:48:00 - [ 188]
Originally by: Don ZOLA
Btw i have a great idea. I`m thinking about offering 10bil isk per each team slot. maybe even more if needed just to get as much as possible. And ofc never show up with any just to spoil the tourney :D
^^ This! Great idea actually. Best way to show how "well thought out" the current system is.  And RAWR really should just host their own "Alliance Invitational Tourney" to show CCP they can do it better.  |
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire |
Posted - 2009.07.23 21:59:00 - [ 189]
|
Kira2002 |
Posted - 2009.07.29 18:54:00 - [ 190]
Originally by: QwaarJet
Originally by: CCP Atropos
Out of interest, what method of teams selection would you all have gone for, and what are the benefits over both the random selection, and the previous 'window' method.
For a start, top 10 or so alliances by size should get automatic entry. After all, it's an alliance tournament, so the major alliance should get automatic entry. I would also give priority to teams who have previously taken part in a tournament before.
It's pointless asking this now, as it's already been done, and we shouldn't have to wait another year for a chance.
You should change these rules now tbh.
Clearly you have no idea why the tournament was created do you? It does no matter how big you are, how many titans, or r64's you got, or how well your known. Get all that out of your head no one cares. This is a tournament for every alliance in eve regardless of size to compete on a level playing field. So no 10 top alliances by size should NOT get automatic entry. Now, the whole alt alliance to ensure your placement needs to be solved. A more simple solution I think someone has already said a min of 50 members and at least 2 corps. Something else I had thought of, upon naming the competing teams, any character joining corp/alliance after that point not be allowed to take part. Make it to where the members that were members when you were selected are the only ones who can be on the team. That would solve a lot of issues. Just my 2 cents |
Tyrrax Thorrk
Amarr
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion |
Posted - 2009.07.29 20:11:00 - [ 191]
a lot of non-issues maybe ;p
plus 50 minimum size is pointless since you can just fill your corp with trial account alts |
Derwent
Hysera.
|
Posted - 2009.07.30 07:18:00 - [ 192]
make it so that only alliances more than 6 months old can join?  |
Tyrrax Thorrk
Amarr
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion |
Posted - 2009.07.30 11:19:00 - [ 193]
Forming an alliance to compete has always been encouraged in the past, and that wouldn't really solve anything since you can always just borrow an alliance from someone who isn't using it
(f.i. Chribba who has two that are well over 6 months old and barely get used) |
irion felpamy
Minmatar
Assisted Genocide
Unprovoked Aggression |
Posted - 2009.07.30 11:20:00 - [ 194]
Originally by: Derwent
make it so that only alliances more than 6 months old can join?
So any alliance created this time round can be used next year? |
Derwent
Hysera.
|
Posted - 2009.07.30 11:25:00 - [ 195]
Edited by: Derwent on 30/07/2009 11:27:24combine 6 months old and minimum 50 members then. What do u got to say about that TT? u seem to be the know it all in this thread  |
CCP Claw
 |
Posted - 2009.07.30 11:40:00 - [ 196]
There are so many workarounds to all of these ideas of minimum sizes and durations :S
The only doable way to do this would be 'participating members must have been a member of the alliance for a minimum of 3 months' which would remove all corp and alliance hopping, corp sales, alt corps, etc.
That would also completely destroy a lot of what the alliance tournament is about and be a massive change in dynamics.
This is by no means going to happen, but if there was any alliance-based restriction, this would be something like how it would have to work, not an arbitrary and easily-defeatable 'minimum members' or 'minimum corp lifespan'.
|
Jordan Musgrat
Convergent
|
Posted - 2009.07.30 11:54:00 - [ 197]
That is true. I think you should be allowing 128 teams a chance to participate, and the prelims should take 1 weekend. You could have 2 matches going on at a time, with no commentary, only video. It would require maybe what, 3-4 people per arena from CCP? So maybe 10 employees total for the opening weekend. The matches would last 5 minutes, and the rules would be the same. Obviously the top 16 from the previous tourney get an automatic bid, and also you should give the biggest 32 alliances automatic entry into the prelim round, but not the actual tourney. While they should have a chance to compete, they shouldn't get an automatic bid just because of size.
So you'd have 112 teams competing for the 48 open slots in the actual tourney. You should allow for 8 minutes per match; 5 for the actual thing, 1 for getting teams in/out, and 1 for extra. So this would take 7.5 hours total. You could easily split it up for 2 days, 4 hours each day.
Now obviously this would create more work than in previous alliance tournaments, but I think it would be worth it. Especially given the recent increase in subs, it's the least that you can do for all your new players, give more people a chance to compete for the tourney. |
Tyrrax Thorrk
Amarr
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion |
Posted - 2009.07.30 12:47:00 - [ 198]
Yeah the only good solution (imo) is changing the format to let more compete or simply letting as many alliances take part as want to
CCP should be able to do this without an unacceptable increase in manpower required to manage it all, just changing it to single elimination for instance would make a huge difference without the tournament really losing anything significant..
I don't see what's so great about a team being able to lose a match without being removed from tourney, sure as hell doesn't make up for dozens of good teams not being able to participate. |
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire |
Posted - 2009.07.30 15:19:00 - [ 199]
Originally by: Jordan Musgrat
That is true. I think you should be allowing 128 teams a chance to participate, and the prelims should take 1 weekend.
Lets put this into perspective for a moment. 97 teams signed up this time for 64 places. At least a couple of those were alt alliances created to increase chances and so far 2 teams picked have dropped out. Is there need to build a format for 128 teams to participate if the actual number of interested alliances under 90? Do CCP staff need the extra organisational headache of adding a 4th weekend for these preliminary eliminations? Just to appease the 26 or so teams that missed out on the random selection? I think the easiest solution for next tourney selection is something like this. * Top 16 teams from previous tourney (any slots not taken by top 16 get added to the random pool). * 16 slots drawn from a pool of teams who have applied to multiple tourneys (whether they got in or not, call this the MM bonus pool ) * 32 slots drawn from remaining unselected applications (thus including people in the multiple tourney pool who didn't get selected). No need to change the actual format of the tourney weekend and regular applicants get a second chance in the draw. Like many things in Eve, there is another solution to just increasing the number of participants |
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire |
Posted - 2009.07.30 16:10:00 - [ 200]
Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk
I don't see what's so great about a team being able to lose a match without being removed from tourney, sure as hell doesn't make up for dozens of good teams not being able to participate.
Personally (and selfishly ) I like the fact all teams get two fights (and only partly because we lost our first match in AT6 and still got through due to winning the second and having a high score). It gives teams a chance to regroup after a bad first match draw and go for a death or glory second match. I would however change the elimination a bit and rather than automatically promote the teams that win both matches I would do the whole lot on points. Thus it would be technically possible to get eliminated even if you win both matches or to even get through without winning at all (though unlikely). Why? To discourage people bringing "safe" setups where they kill a couple of frigs then out tank the remaining opponents for 15 mins. Thus in my system the top 32 scorers get through to the knockout weekend with number of wins deciding in the event of a tie. |
CCP Mindstar
|
Posted - 2009.07.30 16:28:00 - [ 201]
Just to throw another idea in the pot while the discussion is going on - a few people here have been thinking about a 'Silent Auction' for slots for next time. 64 slots (minus the pre-qualified teams), with the slots going to the highest bidders. You send your money in, and the money taken doubles as being a part of the prize pool. I think its suitably cutthroat and capitalistic for EVE's universe |
Tyrrax Thorrk
Amarr
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion |
Posted - 2009.07.30 17:11:00 - [ 202]
all the problems this time (and last time) are because more than 64 teams want to take part |
CCP Mindstar
|
Posted - 2009.07.30 17:28:00 - [ 203]
Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk
all the problems this time (and last time) are because more than 64 teams want to take part
And the time before that as well, when it was 40 teams  . With the hundreds of alliances in game, I think its fair to say this will always be the situation. There may well be a good case for increasing participant numbers in the future but that is not the real problem. The issue at hand here is how do you create a system that fairly reduces number Y down to number X, where X is the number of slots, and Y is the number who signed up. |
Saibin Gias
No Trademark
|
Posted - 2009.07.30 17:52:00 - [ 204]
I think one possible addition to the signup process/rules that would reduce the "throw in 2-3 alliances to increase our odds" situation is to require pilots to be in the alliance when the alliance signs up. Probably would need to allow for the addition of 2-3 replacements after the fact but in general I think this stops some the issues from this year. Maybe. |
Tyrrax Thorrk
Amarr
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion |
Posted - 2009.07.30 18:18:00 - [ 205]
Random selection is retarded anyway, go back to first come first get and that's not an issue
(let all directors in executor corp apply instead of just the CEO so people can stop whining about timezones)
@ Mindstar; I'm pretty sure the simple solution of all fights being elimination would've provided more than enough slots for this time and last time, maybe not next time sure - but hey why borrow trouble -_- |
Christina Bamar
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire |
Posted - 2009.07.30 18:26:00 - [ 206]
Originally by: CCP Mindstar
64 slots (minus the pre-qualified teams), with the slots going to the highest bidders. You send your money in, and the money taken doubles as being a part of the prize pool.
No offense, but this is a horrible idea that goes against everything that CCP has done over the past few tournaments. Faction gear, pirate implants, etc have been removed from the tournament in an effort (I assume?) to make the tournament less about who has R64 moons and more about who actually knows what they're doing. If you want the tournament to be about PvP ability and creativity then turning entry into an auction is certainly not the way to go. A voting system could be good, but could also be easily abused. A size-based system could work, but also punishes those who choose to stay small and fight outnumbered while rewarding those who just take anyone and everyone. Increasing the size potentially works, but also adds more work, and could increase the randomness of advancement (especially if you change the qualifying round to single elimination). A lot of fights come down to specific match ups. You could have an awesome setup and execute it perfectly, but if your opponent happens to get lucky and come with the direct counter then you're screwed. Having a second match in qualifying tends to benefit good teams while eliminating some flukes. Ultimately I don't think there is a better solution. You can try limiting the number of multiple entries and selling of spots, but ultimately there's not really much that can be done about it without impacting legitimate teams. |
Honest Smedley |
Posted - 2009.07.31 05:38:00 - [ 207]
Originally by: CCP Mindstar
Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk
all the problems this time (and last time) are because more than 64 teams want to take part
And the time before that as well, when it was 40 teams . With the hundreds of alliances in game, I think its fair to say this will always be the situation. There may well be a good case for increasing participant numbers in the future but that is not the real problem.
The issue at hand here is how do you create a system that fairly reduces number Y down to number X, where X is the number of slots, and Y is the number who signed up.
The answer is to award a greater portion of the slots off merit than are currently awarded, while retaining a significant portion of 'open' slots. Something like I suggested earlier: 1. Reserve slots for all of the alliances that made it into the final 16 of the previous tournament. 2. Reserve slots for the top ten alliances by count of systems occupied. 3. Reserve slots for the top ten alliances by count of pilot member count. 4. Reserve slots for the best 'pvp performing' corporation from each of the four factional warfare 'alliances'. 5. Award any slots remaining randomly to alliances which qualify (criterion to be determined). Choose a few different ways to qualify off merit, and award a healthy portion (50%+, achieved by likely overlap in categories 1, 2 and 3) off the random draw. You could even play with the seeding this way to great effect: first round could see the reserved slot teams face off against the random draw teams, or factional warfare teams facing off against one another, etc. |
Tyrrax Thorrk
Amarr
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion |
Posted - 2009.07.31 08:01:00 - [ 208]
hi morsus mihi |
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire |
Posted - 2009.07.31 10:29:00 - [ 209]
Originally by: Honest Smedley
The answer is to award a greater portion of the slots off merit than are currently awarded, while retaining a significant portion of 'open' slots. Something like I suggested earlier:
On page 6 of this thread to be precise. Merit is subjective and because I can't help it I will once again reply to an alt post... If you stand by your comments post with your main instead of hiding behind a one month old noobcorp dweller (protip, State war academy are not in the tourney). If your main is this one month old noobcorp dweller then welcome to Eve. Go join a real corp and play a bit before commenting on the tourney selection Originally by: Honest Smedley
1. Reserve slots for all of the alliances that made it into the final 16 of the previous tournament.
Pretty much the only thing people agree on. Originally by: Honest Smedley
2. Reserve slots for the top ten alliances by count of systems occupied.
Irrelevant in the context of the tourney. The ability to spam and fuel pos towers while Napping the other alliances around you has no relation to ability in small gang pvp. Originally by: Honest Smedley
3. Reserve slots for the top ten alliances by count of pilot member count.
Irrelevant in the contect of the tourney. The ability to click accept on more corp applications has no relation to ability in small gang pvp. Originally by: Honest Smedley
4. Reserve slots for the best 'pvp performing' corporation from each of the four factional warfare 'alliances'.
Why should FW teams be given special treatment over the other alliances? If they want to sign up they are can form their own alliance for that purpose. I'm sorry your alliance didn't get in and that you feel you can't post with your main in case we notice which one it is. Because I am also capable of repeating myself here is my idea for a draw system which uses tourney relevant details. Originally by: TeaDaze
* Top 16 teams from previous tourney (any slots not taken by top 16 get added to the random pool).
* 16 slots drawn from a pool of teams who have applied to multiple tourneys (whether they got in or not, call this the MM bonus pool )
* 32 slots drawn from remaining unselected applications (thus including people in the multiple tourney pool who didn't get selected).
No need to change the actual format of the tourney weekend and regular applicants get a second chance in the draw.
Nothing is subjective so no chance of bias. Doesn't require CCP to start scouring killboards or sov maps to perform. That's my idea and I put my name on it |
Lord Vega |
Posted - 2009.07.31 12:05:00 - [ 210]
the blue posting is kinda too late, maybe make your ideas BEFORE you ruined the quality and the ability to run the AT. |
All Channels
EVE Alliance Tournament Discussion