"The Art of Strategy - III"

So, it turns out I get to choose which race my opponent will play against me? Isn't that against the idea of a tournament, where you choose a race against a specific opponent?

:smile09: In the second tournament, it was like that, but there was a pattern. A more interesting option was proposed compared to the previous one: to play on all races and all maps. To avoid a favorable situation for one of the players (where the player gets the desired race and map due to the randomly assigned color), i.e., to eliminate the advantage you mentioned, I think it's necessary to assign races to the opponent.

And you really messed things up with the maps. It's normal to choose from a list of both players' maps and then exclude the ones that have already been played. No matter how you look at it, almost all maps will be played by everyone if there are 2 games with each opponent.

Since then, our rules regarding unplayed games have changed drastically, becoming stricter. The pattern of maps leaves a loophole where not all maps are played because players don't play just one game per week; they start several games but don't finish them within the allotted time. It should be strictly one game per week, which doesn't prohibit playing two games simultaneously. No one would think of playing more than three games simultaneously with such rules (1 game - 1 week). Controlling the presence or absence of a particular map under the rules of the second tournament, "Art of Strategy," would be difficult: to ensure that the map is not repeated. This again gives us the risk of playing on repeated maps and playing all maps at least once. And then, my expressed thoughts are not a verdict. Perhaps I misunderstood Dexter's idea. We are discussing how to do it better...