Posts from Tournament rules for "One for All".

The "One for All" tournament was a rough experience and left mixed impressions.
Issues with the rules, stalling, delays, and a final requiring 3 team wins created many problems.

The team tournament sparks interest among participants of various levels and gives beginners a chance to learn from more experienced players. Overall, it has more pros than cons. Therefore, we shouldn't abandon the idea of running it in the future.

Currently, this tournament is the most complex in terms of organization. The rules need refinement.
Let's get started.

Key points I want to implement in the rules:

1) Since it's a team tournament, the foundation is team formation and the team roster, as well as the possibility of player trades or substitutions.

Goal - to form teams closely matched in strength, while leaving room for maneuvering.
Few may share my view, but I believe that the team captain should not be required to be the number one player on the team. Therefore, I propose a new team formation system:

Objectively, the tournament attracts many players, so we should default to planning for teams of 4 players.
Team captains are chosen randomly by drawing lots from participants who meet the criteria.
The criteria are as follows: Registered on the HeroesWorld forum for at least 3 years, 100+ rated games, overall rating above 1500; optionally, a player meeting the criteria can state during registration whether they wish to be a captain or not.

Once the pool of captains is formed, the player draft begins.
The method used in previous tournaments—taking turns picking players—is interesting and quite good.

Next is the player distribution by rating.
Each player is assigned a seeding number based on their rating, which guarantees their right to play in a specific slot on the team.
This number will be updated at the end of the group stage (and before the semifinals, if necessary in the round of 16).

Correlation between number and rating:
1800+ (1).
1700-1799 (1-2)
1650-1699 (2)
1550-1649 (2-3)
1450-1549 (3)
1400-1449 (3-4)
1400- (4)

As you can see, some rating ranges allow participation in one of two specific slots at the player's choice.
Accordingly, the team captain drafts their team to fill each slot (for example, if the captain has 1710 points, they pick a player with a rating of 1750 and decide which of them will play in slot 1 and slot 2; then they submit the roster for the group stage, which can be changed after the group stage).

Accordingly, the rating will also be updated after the group stage. However, if a player's rating increases, they are eligible to be registered for a higher slot; if a player's rating drops, they are prohibited from playing in a lower slot than they had at the start of the tournament.

After the draft concludes, each team is allowed one transfer with the mutual consent of the captains (captains are forbidden from changing teams).

Substitutions: In case of force majeure, disqualifications, etc., a substitution is allowed with a player not participating in the tournament who has a matching rating (1 during the group stage, 1 during the playoff stage). If no player with the matching rating is available on the substitution list, a player with a lower rating may be moved up to the slot of the departed player, and that player's slot can then be filled by a player from the substitution list.

2) For team names, emblems, and mottos: a requirement must be introduced that all these attributes are directly or indirectly related to Heroes 3.
Troglodytes in the Fog, Arch in Refgue - these are cool names; you need to show ingenuity, a sense of humor, etc., and come up with an appropriate name (emblems and mottos are optional).
Names like "St. Petersburg Beer Lovers" are funny, for instance, but inappropriate!

3) Templates:
A separate list of templates is created for each slot.
For slots 1-2: 9 templates each
For slots 3-4: 7 templates each

For example:
Slot 1: Panic, Mini-Nosta, Diamond, Jebus Cross, h3dm1, 8mm6a, 8xm12a, 6lm10a, Spider.
Slot 2: Balance L, 2sm4d(3), Mirror Diamond, Anarchy, Jebus Cross, 8xm8a, 8xm12a, 6lm10a, Nostalgia.
Slot 3: Skirmish m-200, h3dm1, Diamond, Jebus Cross, 8mm6a, Spider, 8xm12a
Slot 4: Balance m-200, Skirmish m-200, 2sm4d(3), Mini-Nostalgia, Jebus cross, 8mm6a, 6lm10a.

Template selection - The first player vetoes one template, then the second player proposes 3 templates, from which the first chooses the template for the game. After that, the second player chooses their starting color.

For the decisive (3rd game in the playoffs, template selection and color bidding).

4) Starting town, bonus, and hero are random (as in previous tournaments).

5) In playoff games, a bo2 series is played, with the exact score of each series being important (4-0, 3-1, 2-2). Draws in individual games during the playoff stage are prohibited.
A decisive series in the playoffs is played only if the total score is tied after two series.
For example, Team A wins the 1st series 3-1 and loses the 2nd series 1-3, therefore the total score after two series is a 4-4 draw.
In a situation where one team wins a series 4-0 and the other wins 3-1, the team with the greater number of individual wins advances.

These are essentially the main points I wanted to bring up for discussion. The only thing is that the final requiring 3 wins didn't work out well; it's better to keep it at 2 wins, just like in the other elimination stages.

I read up to the point where there were 4 people in the team, and then I stopped...

I read up to the point of having 4 people on a team, but I didn't go any further...

This isn't necessary; 3 participants per team is, in my opinion, the best option that can be implemented with a maximum of 60 registered participants (20 teams of 3 people) or 72 participants (24 teams of 3 people). With a larger number of participants, it will be difficult to form equal team compositions, which will objectively lead to the need to add a 4th player and reduce the total number of teams.

A brief comment on each point:
1) In my opinion, this is a strange rule. I think the captain should be a fixed figure. I can understand shuffling players in positions 2, 3, and 4, but I don't think there's any point in changing the captain. And the rule of dividing based on rating, in my opinion, only makes sense for reserve players. I just think that a player like Diabler or Maradjan would easily be taken as the second pick.
And I don't quite understand if there's a possibility to change player positions for each game. I have a feeling that this will create a lot of confusion. The only thing that was bad about the rules of the previous tournament was the inability to make substitutions. I encountered a situation in my team where the captain played in 4 out of 8 games, while a player from the second tier played in only 1 out of 8. This is what needs to be addressed. Also, the final, due to UrukHai's inactivity, turned into a 4v3 game.
2. This is up to you; it won't affect the tournament process.
3. Dima, the only question here is, will you be up for handling all of this? Just imagine. I understand that each player will provide their own pool of 9 templates, and the most popular ones will be selected. Now, just imagine how much trouble you'll create for yourself. Each player will be sorted into tiers – that's fine. But... after the draft, each player will be seeded into tiers 1-4. Then you take these lists of templates and sort them into tiers 1-4 as well. Then you choose the 9 (7) most popular templates for each tier. Wouldn't this be too much work for you? It's a rather lengthy and painstaking process. In my opinion, there was the least chance of error in the selection of templates. The only thing is, I don't know how relevant it is, but maybe you could introduce a trade for color instead of the second player choosing the color. Although, in my opinion, the choice of templates is very color-dependent. So, this is up to you.
4. Everything is as it was before, everything is fine.
5. The Bo2 playoff system is good. But, will there again be an advantage for the captain's game in case of a 6-6 tie, or not?
And the question is, will wins in the series be counted, or will the points of each selected player be counted in the groups?

I might not have expressed my idea very clearly. Let's take an example, using players with appropriate ratings just for illustration. Let's say the captain, KobRa_RR, has a rating of 1946 - this means he can definitely only play in slot number 1. It's his turn to pick a player - let's say he picks Diablera, who has a rating of 1647 - this means he can be listed for slot 2 or 3. Next, Kobra has a third pick - let's say he picks yarik1987, who has a rating of 1429 - this means he can be listed for slot 3 or 4. Next, he has a fourth pick - let's say he picks marajan, who has a rating of 1397 - this means he can only be listed for slot 4. He is satisfied with his picks, they come up with a team name and submit their roster for the groups: 1) KobRa_RR 2) Diaber 3) yarik1987 4) marajan They play the group stage with this exact lineup, without changing positions within the team. Then, let's say they make it to the playoffs. The players' ratings may change during this time. Let's say marajan played well and raised his rating to 1600 - this rating will give him the opportunity to be listed for slot 2 or 3. Before the playoffs, the captain has the right to change the roster. As you can see above, Diabler could be listed for positions 2-3, and yarik for 3-4. So, for the playoffs, the captain forms the following roster: 1) KobRa_RR 2) marajan 3) Diabler 4) yarik1987 This is an objective necessity - in OzV-4, Jaris, while in the top 20 of the rating, played in slot 4. And if Maretti had the opportunity, he would have moved him to slot 2 for the games against Amsterdam. Regarding templates - a separate list of templates will be created for each slot by the organizer. Players will not submit their own pool of templates. This is more for new players, as more than half of the templates are ones that many new players, or even more experienced ones, may either not play at all or have only played a couple of times. And such a distribution will allow for the 1st and 2nd tiers to have a standard pool in the form of Jeb, Diamond, Mininoasta, Mirror, and HL. And for lower levels - M200, L templates, Jeb, and the most popular HLs. Regarding points in the group - the overall team points are counted first, if they are equal - the points in the head-to-head match are counted, if it's a draw - the individual points in the head-to-head match are counted, and if it's still a draw - then the sum of individual points for the entire group stage is counted. If there is a 2-2 draw in the 3rd round of the playoffs, the result of the match between the players in slot 1 (the first slot) is decisive.

I don't understand it at all. And I still don't understand the point of having 4 players. Make a bunch of groups of 3 players (6 in a group, for example, with 1-2 places advancing) or 4 groups of 5 players on a team... What's the point of a draw? It just prolongs the finals...

Well, since the castle selection system remains completely random, templates can also be made random, like in Bishop's Tournament; limiting templates by "slots" seems absurd. As for captains, the voting system is optimal; there’s no need to reinvent the wheel here.

Having 4 people on a team is absurd for obvious reasons. There shouldn't be situations where the captain's game "weighs" more than others – that's not right. 5 is already too many. It turns out that the optimal number is 3. But then, difficulties arise with substitutions again, and we're back to square one. In this case, a possible option is to assemble a team of 4, but only 3 will play, like having one permanent substitute. But this option also has a downside – some players might not play at all. In the end, there is no optimal option.

Ultimately, I would suggest sticking to 3 players, but allowing free substitutions and tying them to a lowered rating. For example:
Captain substitution: no more than 1700
Second tier substitution: no more than 1600
Third tier substitution: no more than 1500
The numbers are arbitrary and can be adjusted at the organizer's discretion. Moreover, if the organizer decides that a player's rating is artificially lowered, they have the right to refuse the substitution.
Captains should be chosen not by voting, but simply by rating. This will save time and reduce variance, eliminating such paradoxes as captains with ratings of 1500, for example, Sticky or kalababa. With all my respect for them as people, they don't qualify for the first tier.

Regarding the tournament system, it seems too drawn out to me. Groups of 8 teams are too many; it's better to have more groups and an extra stage of BO1 playoffs. BO2 is ridiculous, of course.

As for the names and emblems, let's not make people laugh. We're not in kindergarten. If the guys want to call themselves "Beer Lovers," what's wrong with that? Emblems and mottos were never used anywhere except in the first post, and some teams didn't even bother to come up with names (Kobra's team, hello :D). I think we can limit it to just the name. IMHO.

Templates for slots – too much. We shouldn't overcomplicate the system. I think many people are used to the system of "their own" and "other people's" templates; I don't think we should deviate from that. As an option, we can tie a list of "their own" templates to each player, within which a pick is made when playing on "their own field." Or leave everything as it is.

Choosing the starting castle. It's unclear why the choice is random. Is there any justification for this? It's very unpleasant to get Inferno against Castle on Jebus in the final, or Necropolis against Citadel on Anarchy. Randomness is fun, but there's a limit. We can vote on this, of course.

P.S. Forget about BO2 in the playoffs. It's an unnecessary headache with calculating points, games of captains, etc. We need to minimize such moments.

I also support the implementation of the "Bishop system" with coins on the template; it was very effective, and it's strange that it hasn't been used in any other tournament since.

Regarding team formation, here's a suggestion: 3 people per team, and each team forms independently. One restriction: the total rating of the players should not exceed 5000. And there's no need for captains; everyone is equal.

I also support the implementation of the "Bishop system" with coins on the template; it was very effective, and it's strange that it hasn't been used in any tournament since.

Regarding team formation, here's a suggestion: 3 people per team, and each team forms independently. One restriction: the total rating of the players should not exceed 5000. And there should be no captains; everyone is equal.

And how would you gather such teams? Less than 5000 means 3 players at 1650 each. At the same time, players like Cobra or Gomunguls can only take players with a maximum rating of 1500-1520, which results in teams that are not quite equal. Again, now everyone will gather acquaintances who are stronger, and it will turn out to be roughly 5 top teams, and the rest will be whoever is left. What kind of tournament will that be? There is already a trend of not taking players with low ratings into tournaments, which is not good.

and how do you form such teams? Less than 5000 means 3 players at 1650 each. While players like Cobra or Gomunguls can take players with a maximum of 1500-1520, which results in somewhat uneven teams. Again, now everyone will gather acquaintances who are stronger, and it will turn out to be roughly 5 top teams, and the rest will be whoever is left. And what kind of tournament will this be? There is already a trend of not taking players with low ratings into tournaments, which is not good.

Why not? A 1900-2000 player can take another player with 1700, and they will have to take the third player with 1300-1400. If you analyze it, everything looks fine. And it will be possible to include absolutely everyone who wants to participate in the tournament.

In my opinion, there shouldn't be situations where it's beneficial to artificially lower your own rating. Because this will lead to rating manipulation and "weight" resets before competitions. Also, if possible, direct reliance on rating during matchmaking should be avoided, as not everyone's rating accurately reflects their skill. The draft system for players seems quite successful in this regard.

Regarding team formation, here's a suggestion: 3 players per team, with each team forming independently. One restriction: the total rating of the players should not exceed 5000. And there should be no captains; everyone is equal.

I have repeatedly promoted the idea of a team tournament where participants form their own teams. Previously, only such team formats existed, and it was very interesting. But now, people seem to prefer this format.

Perhaps you could tell me if there are any plans for the next "One for All"?

I have an idea to hold a team tournament on HotA, and it would be good to schedule them separately.

You should better tell me, are there any plans regarding the next "One for All"?

I have an idea to hold a team tournament on HotA, preferably scheduling them separately.

maybe a team tournament Sod vs HotA (verbal, of course)? :D