[HMM II TOURNAMENT OFF] New Year Arena - 2008

Colleagues, feel free to ask questions; everything is fair and legal, and you have every right to ask as many clarifying questions as you need. I will answer questions regarding the procedure for the second stage. 1. January 15th has arrived, and my inbox is full of save files. Let's say there are 10. 2. I take a hero from each save file. In total, I get, let's say, 10 heroes. 3. I create 90 maps (I just realized WHAT I have to do. But, notice, not a single curse word:))). These maps are what are called arenas. 4. Each of the 10 players receives an email with 18 save files. They need to load them in multiplayer mode and conduct battles for BOTH sides. There's no need to play passively; in fact, most players already have a reputation as fair fighters. 5. 18 save files represent 9 two-round matches. The rounds differ in who attacks first. You send me the results of the battles in a reply email (e.g., vbn - X 1:0; X - vbn 0:1; and so on). 6. I conduct the battles myself in parallel. 7. The results are published. If anyone has a different opinion, they can express it. But the final verdict is given by the judge. Here's another excellent question that was asked, but in a chat that I have open and there's no way to answer. The question was asked by Alex_R. I'll try to rephrase it as follows: "What are the criteria for evaluating the arenas, and what guarantee is there of the judge's impartiality and objectivity?" (Alex_R, did I state it correctly?). First of all, I think the question is absolutely correct and legitimate, and it can and should be asked in this thread. 1. Criteria for evaluating arenas. There are four possible player verdicts on an arena: 1) The opinions of both participants coincide; 2) The opinions of the participants do not coincide; 3) One of the participants did not send a verdict; 4) Neither participant sent a verdict. Based on these situations, the judge: 1) In the case of an identical verdict from the players, with a probability of over 95%, will agree with their decision; 2) In the case of different verdicts from the players, will request the most detailed justification for the decision (possibly with screenshots). Based on the players' arguments and his own preliminary decision, a final verdict will be issued; 3) In the case of a missing verdict from one of the players, the PRELIMINARY verdict of the judge will begin to play the role of that player's verdict. The situation then develops according to the scenario described in point 1) or 2); 4) In the case of a missing verdict from both players, the situation automatically transitions to option 1) with identical PRELIMINARY verdicts from the judge. Thus, the judge's PRELIMINARY verdict on this match has a probability of over 95% of becoming final. 2. Guarantees of the judge's objectivity and impartiality are my reputation. As you can see, I will not be playing in this tournament. I will judge the arenas fairly and, of course, will try to find the strongest moves from both sides. In the event of protests, I will analyze each case in detail. I want to say that judging arenas is a very delicate matter. I can say that I have some experience in battles, as well as in modeling without a computer. I also have some experience in judging competitions, and not only offline and not only in Heroes. More questions!