Tournament rules for "One for All".

The problem with OZ4 was the motivation of some players to even participate in this tournament. As a result, some games were not played, and technical results were recorded. I highly doubt that the players' motivation will increase, especially those who realized the lack of prospects for their team during the draft stage. Therefore, I would like to emphasize that balancing the teams in terms of composition is important, and it is also important to find replacements for them during the tournament. To form the most balanced teams, an even number of tiers is ideal. In a team with 3 tiers, teams with the strongest captains have an advantage in the 1st and 3rd tiers and a weaker 2nd tier, meaning they have an advantage in two tiers compared to one tier for teams with weaker captains. We can also look at the situation from the perspective of the last captain. First, who could it be? In the previous tournament, more than 80 participants registered, which means that with 3 tiers, there will be at least 27 teams or 27 captains. Also, in OZ4, during the voting stage, I assigned random positions for places above 15; now, I have no idea who will be among the last captains. And so, let's say jaris becomes a captain. With all due respect to whoever he is, he is unlikely to be able to compete with the top 10-15 players, receives a strong second tier, and a weak third tier. That is, he almost certainly has fewer chances. And not just him as a captain, but the entire team. And there will be about 10 such teams. And how does this affect the competitive aspect and the players' motivation? This is if we keep the team draft procedure the same. The situation could be improved by introducing restrictions such as a total rating of no more than 5000. But I am not a supporter of using rating as a determining factor. Some of the reasons have been mentioned above: 1) The possibility of manipulating the rating. 2) It should be understood that the rating and the player's skill may not correlate for various reasons: a) Different motivations for increasing the rating. For example, it is generally more interesting for beginners, as can be seen in the examples of some of the current top-rated players. b) Different compositions of opponents. c) A player with 0 games and an absolute beginner has a starting rating of 1500 and will almost certainly lose to, say, maradjana with a rating of 1400. I believe that if we rely on the rating, the range boundaries should be very vague. And if we are talking about it, then the tournament rating seems more interesting in this regard: http://heroes3stat.tk/tournament_rating/ Having an even number of rounds is a direct consequence of putting the teams in equal conditions in terms of choosing colors and maps. We can switch to Bo1 or within the framework of trading maps or within the framework of a full random (the same Bishop system). But in the case of Bo2, the number of draws is not large (only 2 draws in the playoffs in OZ4), and, I note, both draws involved teams in which 1 player did not play. There is a high probability that with the replacement of players, there would be no draws at all! And I do not see any significant drawbacks in having an ace match. The tournament will take place over 10 months, and will it make a big difference if it takes 11 months?