Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
I'll quote Dandy from the discussion thread about the "One for All" rules: Dandy
To form the most balanced teams, an even number of pools is best. In a team with 3 pools, teams with the strongest captains have an advantage in the 1st and 3rd pools and a weaker 2nd pool, meaning they have an advantage in two pools compared to one pool for teams with weaker captains.
But in Bo2, the number of draws is small (only 2 draws in the playoffs in OzV4), and I must note that both draws involved teams where 1 player did not participate. There is a high probability that with player substitutions, there would be no draws at all! And I don't see any major drawbacks in having an ace match. The tournament will last for 10 months, and will it make a big difference if it lasts for 11 months?
4 players are better for the tournament (in general, an even number of players in a team) - as it creates more equal team compositions. 5 players are more convenient for organization (an odd number of participants in a team) - as it reduces the chance of a draw in a single series.
Based on the number of registered participants we have, I'm in favor of 4 players per team.
skd
