One for all, and all for one!

Due to an irresponsible attitude towards the Tournament and the team (although there may be valid reasons for this), I need to replace the second player on my team.
I ask the organizers to consider the candidacy of player ~no1_knows_me~ to replace player Marduk on the "Ogurtsy" team.

What kind of player is he? Where is he from? Let him contact me tomorrow on ICQ.

I told you to make a clear table, not something that I can't understand.

Previous post:

I don't understand the table at all!

You need to decide...

Make two tables: an individual one + a team one, so that everyone understands who won against whom and who is doing a great job. This accumulation of the team score only spoils the overall picture. I think this is not a problem, right?

You are right here, it's not difficult! But it's about something else. When the topic of tables came up, Dirty first wrote that the only optimal option would be to make 3 individual tables + 1 team table, and I also thought so, but I considered it too much, so I made a team table (without individual players). Instead of suggesting adding a table for players to it, someone wanted to put all the information in one table. I didn't explain in advance that it would be more complicated, as I thought they would figure it out, and it's not really difficult for me, and it's even more convenient to navigate in a slightly more complex, but informative one, and I made the first version. Then Scorpion and you started coming up with "upgrades to my first version," which, in my opinion, were even worse (IMHO). Then, I came up with the one that exists now - complex (again, depending on who you ask), but informative. For me, the table is simple, as I have always used them and observed them throughout my life for various reasons. When you couldn't make anything decent yourself, and the current one doesn't suit you (or rather, it's difficult to understand and navigate), you are now asking to return everything back, i.e., to simplify the readability of the information by dividing one into several tables. Doesn't it seem like all this is like the whims of little children?

Ideally, since you didn't really know what you wanted from the beginning and disrupted it with your ill-conceived ideas (and I took them for granted), it would be better to leave everything as it is, so that in the future you would make more selective suggestions. But still, I will make 2 tables: a team one, like I did at the very beginning + a separate one for players

(IMHO, in the future, it is still necessary to count the points scored by the team. Because, for example, my first game with Valenok is devoid of any motivation - we are losing 0-2, what's the point of spending a lot of time if the pro on 90 3-0 or 2-1 doesn't play any role)

:smile42: Here, a very big misconception arises in the early stages of the group competition for many.
Firstly, you immediately give away 10%, which already makes the team weaker. There are now questions about Aripotre, I am waiting for his answer to the question asked in another topic. If it turns out that he played against shamysa in violation of the rules, I will naturally put them in, thereby your loss played a role. Furthermore, hypothetically, you, believing that the game with Valenok doesn't matter, will give him a victory, and it will turn out that your team has 2 victories given away + those losses, which may not be enough in case of a tie in points due to your inability to motivate yourself in a small, but still meaningful match.

Secondly, in all team tournaments, there can absolutely be such "unmotivating games." If you play 6 matches, then with a score of 3-0 not in your favor, morale already drops, and motivation too, because in any case, you can't hope for a victory, and it's difficult to win 3 games in a row. I'm not even talking about the fact that with a score of 4-0, 2 games will be useless.

Thirdly, the groups were distributed by lot, and it was impossible to create 16 absolutely equal groups. After the draw, it always becomes clear (let's take 3 players) who is approximately stronger and who is weaker in confrontation with opponents. Often, two of the three players are either higher in level than their opponents or lower. If we take a confrontation between teams where 2 players out of 3 are clearly leaders over their opponents, then it is much easier for this team to win up to 6 victories than up to 2, because it is enough to win 4 games for a draw, 3 for a tie, and only 2 for a loss (which is very unlikely). According to the rules of this tournament, up to 2 victories, a weaker generated team (which is not their fault) has a greater chance of at least scoring 3 points out of 6 in games with a stronger team, also giving away 3 points, while it is possible to win only 2 times out of 6, but to win, you have to win 4 games! In team competitions, it doesn't matter who won the match with what score, for a victory of 3-0 or 2-1, exactly 3 points are given in each individual specific confrontation of three players on each side!

This proposal changes the rules of this tournament, so it is completely irrelevant in this context.