skd
Auto-translated
Earlier in the thread, we discussed that in a round robin, a decisive match could be played early, in rounds 4-5 (conditionally).
By round 6, 1-2 contenders for the win will likely be determined.
For example, one of them will face players who have lost motivation (lost their chance for 1st place), while the other will face players with a shot at the top 3 (a conditional situation, but quite possible).
I want to develop a system of conducting that can keep everyone on their toes until the end of the tournament.
A final four in such a case would allow players from the middle of the table to compete for the 3rd and 4th slots.
Perhaps it's worth giving players from 1st and 2nd place a bonus in the form of starting with a 1-0 aggregate score when playing up to 2 wins.
On the other hand, Ave gave an example of a player going 9-0 in a round robin tournament, and in that case, an additional final between just 2 players would look unfair, and between 4 even more so.
Regarding templates/town. In FB-7, players were asked to submit a list of towns without repeats against each player before the start of the tournament, which introduced an imbalance, as weaker opponents were given Inferno/Tower, while favorites got top-tier towns, thereby making the fight for victory extremely difficult for those favorites. In that FB, templates were chosen by striking — that is, they struck templates suited to their town.
Naturally, I took this into account. In general, I have read all the threads on OFB and FB =)
That option didn't appeal to me much either.
The town selection system I want to include in the regulations is that you can ban the opponent from choosing 3-2-1 towns (depending on the tournament round), and only then make a choice.
This choice will be secret.
For example: Player A played Inferno in round 1 and Rampart in round 2.
Now it's round 3 — the opponent additionally bans Dungeon and Castle, and as a result Player A chooses from the remaining 5 towns. He informs the judge of his choice. His opponent does the same. After that, they start the game.
The difference in the rule is only if mirrored templates are used; I described the approximate order of town selection for them a bit earlier.
Regarding templates — it is proposed that the participants themselves choose 9 templates. The choice will be from a list of 14 templates. Choosing M-200, Anarchy, Yolka, etc. will be prohibited.
I would like to hear the opinion of potential FB participants about having a template for each round or striking templates
I support this idea, and here's why: Helllight and Kobra play Jebus Cross excellently — it's quite expected that in the case of striking templates, we won't see a game against them on Jebus Cross; FTS or Homunculs (who are HL-only in the final) clearly play well on HL+U, and as Ave put it, if he happened to land on ATG (conditionally), he would remove "skill templates"; I think this chain could be continued.
Overall, such a layer of rules with town selection and templates for each round adds a macro aspect to the tournament.
But then again, if the majority considers this all unnecessary nonsense, we can simply make a schedule for 10 rounds right away (as was done in FB-8), keep the striking of templates/towns, and periodically update the table with the results in the thread.
By round 6, 1-2 contenders for the win will likely be determined.
For example, one of them will face players who have lost motivation (lost their chance for 1st place), while the other will face players with a shot at the top 3 (a conditional situation, but quite possible).
I want to develop a system of conducting that can keep everyone on their toes until the end of the tournament.
A final four in such a case would allow players from the middle of the table to compete for the 3rd and 4th slots.
Perhaps it's worth giving players from 1st and 2nd place a bonus in the form of starting with a 1-0 aggregate score when playing up to 2 wins.
On the other hand, Ave gave an example of a player going 9-0 in a round robin tournament, and in that case, an additional final between just 2 players would look unfair, and between 4 even more so.
Regarding templates/town. In FB-7, players were asked to submit a list of towns without repeats against each player before the start of the tournament, which introduced an imbalance, as weaker opponents were given Inferno/Tower, while favorites got top-tier towns, thereby making the fight for victory extremely difficult for those favorites. In that FB, templates were chosen by striking — that is, they struck templates suited to their town.
Naturally, I took this into account. In general, I have read all the threads on OFB and FB =)
That option didn't appeal to me much either.
The town selection system I want to include in the regulations is that you can ban the opponent from choosing 3-2-1 towns (depending on the tournament round), and only then make a choice.
This choice will be secret.
For example: Player A played Inferno in round 1 and Rampart in round 2.
Now it's round 3 — the opponent additionally bans Dungeon and Castle, and as a result Player A chooses from the remaining 5 towns. He informs the judge of his choice. His opponent does the same. After that, they start the game.
The difference in the rule is only if mirrored templates are used; I described the approximate order of town selection for them a bit earlier.
Regarding templates — it is proposed that the participants themselves choose 9 templates. The choice will be from a list of 14 templates. Choosing M-200, Anarchy, Yolka, etc. will be prohibited.
I would like to hear the opinion of potential FB participants about having a template for each round or striking templates
I support this idea, and here's why: Helllight and Kobra play Jebus Cross excellently — it's quite expected that in the case of striking templates, we won't see a game against them on Jebus Cross; FTS or Homunculs (who are HL-only in the final) clearly play well on HL+U, and as Ave put it, if he happened to land on ATG (conditionally), he would remove "skill templates"; I think this chain could be continued.
Overall, such a layer of rules with town selection and templates for each round adds a macro aspect to the tournament.
But then again, if the majority considers this all unnecessary nonsense, we can simply make a schedule for 10 rounds right away (as was done in FB-8), keep the striking of templates/towns, and periodically update the table with the results in the thread.
UTC+03:00, icq 593626431
