I have a suggestion:
I've been thinking about a rematchand decided:
the loser should have the right to a rematch...
Lee, a rematch sounds good, of course, but why should people devalue their victory by engaging in a new game with an already defeated opponent on unfavorable terms?
And what's the point of all this? Do you want there to be no room for chance in the tournament, and for the objectively strongest player to win? But that doesn't happen in any competition; there's always room for the human factor. Otherwise, there would be no point in playing the finals; let the AI calculate it. Whoever has the stronger army wins. However, people play finals, and in them, in addition to the player's skill, the incorrectly calculated line of sight, misclicks, and annoying distraction play a role. And whoever wins, that's it.
How many times should opponents play each other before it can be confidently stated that player A is stronger than player B? :confused: Do they rerun the 100-meter dash at the Olympics to satisfy the ambitions of the person who finished second? And this is by no means a 100-meter dash: these are not short duels, but full-fledged maps, many of which take 10-12 hours of real time to play.
In the end, it's easier to introduce an additional stage in the tournament. But in that case, the number of participants should decrease from stage to stage, as it was this time. And what you're suggesting is a round-robin system with rather strange rules: in it, it's more profitable to lose.:smile30:
