One for all and all for one - 2

Changing the tournament format is unacceptable.

Optimizing the processes for conducting this tournament format is the main goal.


point by point:

1. Voting for Captains is part of the tournament format.

Message from Dirty_Player
I didn't like this point, because many vote not based on skill, but "by own rules," based on friendship. Situations arise where players who barely make it into the second basket by rating end up in the 1st basket. Naturally, such a team no longer contends for victory in any case, since the value of the captain as a 1st basket player is much higher than the actual captain's duties. An option here would be to choose N captains based on some criteria, and then draw lots among them for the order of selection.

I am answering you specifically — that is how you and a very small number of other players voted! By voting this way, you introduce chaos yourself. If you personally vote conscientiously and call others to do so, I think everything will be fine. Chaos can also be managed. That was the first point.

Second — society gets what it wants (or what it creates through unconscious actions). This is also part of the tournament format, because there is a desire to determine things by vote and NO OTHER WAY. Maybe everyone wants anarchy; then they will get such captains during the voting. Only no one can know the outcome beforehand, because I don't tell anyone the votes until official publication, although if someone engages in wild campaigning just to spite the tournament itself, this chaos could be brought to life, but it won't change anything in the long run and after the chaos, the time of common sense will inevitably come.

Third, I absolutely disagree that captain's duties contribute little to the team. Many probably think so, but whoever worried most about the tournament was the one who reached the final for the 2nd time in a row, and twice in a row the most active captains turned out to be the winners. Last year Vitalya simply made monsters out of his guys; he worked with them online, guided them through the tournament, kept a close eye on everything, asked about details, watched everyone, and much more. Look at his partners now — they are showing weak results. Conclusion — motivation! Right now Bishop has done this more than any other participant in the entire tournament. I don't know all the nuances, but he communicated with me very actively. I think there is a connection here.

2. No-names.

Everyone remembers the situation with ColdRain and we wouldn't want a repeat of it, so either don't take them into the tournament or set stricter participation criteria (more games, placement in the rating table at the end of the season). The fate of the entire team depends on a no-name who might vanish without a trace.

This proposal is fair and correct; that is how we will do it.

3.

Selection of players after the results of the basket distribution are finalized. I would like some time to familiarize myself with the composition of the baskets, and in case of inability to be present at the moment of player selection, leave a proxy or provide a list of priority players.

3 days are given for familiarization. No one is forbidden from leaving a proxy. For example, during the last vote on Skype, Bishop was a proxy for Stinger, if I'm not mistaken.

4.

Reducing games in the group stage. After all, 6 teams, and double round-robin — that's overkill, IMHO. Either make fewer teams per group if there is a desire to play double round-robin, or more teams per group but single round-robin. Perhaps some other system. This needs thought; much depends on the composition.

Games in the group must be double round-robin so that teams can actually build a team. I agree that there are many games, but given the number of registered players, this seemed optimal to me. I am for reducing games in the group, but everything needs to be thought through and based on the number of registrants.

5. Switching to a chess timer. I understand that this is a sore spot for you, but we still need to consider the opinion of the majority and follow fashion trends

Of course I understand that many like the chess timer, but my goal is not to prove the advantage of the SoD timer, but to provide the opportunity to play with it. I believe it has its own advantages, which actually exist and cannot be disputed, as well as disadvantages. No one forbids playing on a chess timer by agreement. An alternative is also good.

6.

Review the pool of templates, remove the least popular ones, add some new ones. Perhaps it's worth reviewing the selection system itself. But this is not as critical.

I am waiting for proposals.

Message from Roger DAltavilla
I also have suggestions for improvement:
1) free team formation, rather than by baskets;
2) increasing the team size to 7(9) players;
3) counting the result of each match toward the score, not just by majority; meaning the score is not 1:0, but 4:3, 5:2, 6:1 and even 7:0
4) only the team captain communicates with the organizers; he also distributes players to numbers, monitors his team's deadlines, and files protests if necessary.

This sounds like some other tournament. None of this will happen in "One for All -3"