Grando
Auto-translated
Generally, as the size of a small group increases from 2 to 7 people, its effectiveness should theoretically grow steadily. But in practice, specifically for our community, it seems that the idea that three people is the limit is correct. I will tactfully refrain from discussing the reasons.
As a solution that could reduce the difficulties mentioned above in this thread, I see a scheme with teams of 5 people, but with a maximum of three players in each specific match (for example, both captains subjectively eliminate one player each, and the ability to replace players with a weaker one, as described in Game of Thrones, is, in my opinion, excellent). This scheme will protect against a large number of teams (which would result if they were composed of 3 people) and somehow protect the "active core of the team" from "absent," "problematic," and "those who don't understand anything" (which is discovered during the tournament).
As a solution that could reduce the difficulties mentioned above in this thread, I see a scheme with teams of 5 people, but with a maximum of three players in each specific match (for example, both captains subjectively eliminate one player each, and the ability to replace players with a weaker one, as described in Game of Thrones, is, in my opinion, excellent). This scheme will protect against a large number of teams (which would result if they were composed of 3 people) and somehow protect the "active core of the team" from "absent," "problematic," and "those who don't understand anything" (which is discovered during the tournament).