We could limit the number of unofficial tournaments. For example, allow only 3 unofficial tournaments to run simultaneously. The rest would be queued. Once one of the 3 tournaments ends, the next one in the queue can start...
Posts from TOURNAMENT TROUBLES!
no tournament - no problem! :D
But seriously:
An unofficial tournament is unofficial for a reason! It can be held as many times as one wants! Moreover, any rules can be used for the tournament, or none at all! And any portal user can organize them!
If we introduce a limit on the number of tournaments, then it would make sense to also limit the rules. But then what would be the difference between an official and an unofficial tournament? Only the organizer. Does that make any sense? In my opinion, no.
Because why are one organizer's tournaments official while another's are not? Even though the second one might run tournaments far better than the official one..
Respectfully.
Yeah, or maybe they should be banned altogether... and the problem disappears on its own... :D
No tournament - no problem! :D
Then it makes sense to allow the "officialization" procedure. :) Any organizer receives a license and holds their official tournament if they wish... Then you can always ask them - do they have a license? i.e., will there be rating support or not? All other decisions follow from this - whether to play in this tournament or not...
A good suggestion. I completely agree with AmberSoler.
:smile28: [M] "Я и моя тень" - "I am and my shadow" :smile28:
:smile16:
Then it makes sense to allow the "officialization" procedure. :) Any organizer receives a license and holds their official Tournament if they wish... Then you can always ask them - do they have a license? i.e., will you have rating support or not? All other decisions follow from this - whether to play in this Tournament or not...
In my opinion, this increases the player's interest in playing as many rating Tournaments as possible, choosing the best results for themselves, and possibly suppressing the rating of other participants whom they will overtake in other Tournaments for which their rating will not be included in the overall score.
In my opinion, there is only one criterion – the players' interest in the tournament.
How to solve the issue:
1. Award a rating for all official tournaments.
2. Consider unofficial tournaments that gather a quorum as official.
That's it. There are no problems. :)
To avoid further disputes, I suggest voting on this new rule, and everything will fall into place on its own.
We can set a limit on the number of unofficial tournaments. For example, 3 unofficial tournaments at a time. The rest can be put in a queue. When one of the tournaments from the "3" ends, the next one can be started...
And I completely agree with that. Only 3 unofficial tournaments should be held simultaneously. Those who want to hold a tournament can wait in a queue... when one tournament ends, they can hold theirs if they wish.
:smile28: [M] "Я и моя тень" - "I am and my shadow" :smile28:
:smile16:
Then it makes sense to allow an "officialization" procedure. :) Any organizer gets a license and holds their official tournament, if they wish...
The question is at what point will they receive the license? Before? or after? and who will be issuing it?
to IronAxe: The idea of choosing the best result by rating seems not very good to me. because I believe that if a tournament is rated, then the player must receive the rating for that specific tournament.
Yes, and furthermore, in my opinion, a selection system would not be very functional; i.e., one doesn't really want to "chase" all users and ask: "Do you want to include the rating for 'such-and-such' tournament in your 'Player Rating'?"
Respectfully.
Interesting proposal.
The question is, at what point will they receive the license? Before or after? And who will issue it?
Well, most likely, it will be those who organize official tournaments.
And you could also create a separate licensing department, which would include the people who actually organize official tournaments. And this department would issue licenses for organizing unofficial tournaments.
:smile28: [M] "Я и моя тень" - "I am and my shadow" :smile28:
:smile16:
I don't think the idea of selecting the best result based on rating is very good. Because I believe that if a tournament is rated, the player must receive a rating for that tournament.
Yes, and besides, I think the selection system will not be very efficient, i.e., I don't want to "chase" after all users and ask: "Do you want to include the rating for "this" tournament in your "overall rating"?"
PS. I'm not insisting on this. In general, I don't really care what they come up with regarding the rating. I agree with vbn, it doesn't matter what system is used - you just need to play in tournaments and try to take the highest places, then you have more chances to be in first place with ANY system. But I'll add something of my own :) Play ALL versions, then the chance of being the overall winner is greater, if you don't accept my proposal regarding the Kanigam tournament, where ratings are counted only from five rounds chosen by the player. And this is not much different from my proposal above regarding unofficial tournaments ;) And if you pass a law not to count ratings in unofficial tournaments, it will be easier for me :) I won't have to waste time on them. I'll have an extra beer ;)
Bread doesn't follow you; it's the other way around. You just need to inform players that if they don't submit their requests on time regarding what should and shouldn't be counted, they'll automatically get results for the first two tournaments in order, and then they can figure it out themselves. So they can work better on their rating policy.
But don't I decide where to put my rating, and where not?! ... rating is like a reward ... I wanted to, I took the keychain off my neck ... I do what I want ... it's my rating!!!:smile51:
because if you're removed, everything has to be recalculated...
you refused now - I have to recalculate...
then someone else refuses - I have to recalculate...
and so on.
You know what I'm going to say to all of you?
Now that you've declined, I have to recalculate...
Then someone else declines, and I have to recalculate again...
And so on.
You know what I'm going to say to all of you?
P.S. While they're at it, they could also fix the errors... in the nicknames.
I understand that this is an unnecessary headache for the accountant, but I was and am the only one who asked for this... they could have just recalculated it once... especially since if the system is well-designed (e.g., in Excel), it's not difficult to delete one of the bottom rows!!!
Therefore, there will be no exceptions.
P.S. While you're at it, you could fix the errors... in the nicknames;)
Where are the errors? Please list them, and I will definitely fix them.
Sincerely.
It doesn't matter that you're alone right now. Later, another one will be found, and then another. The main thing is that there will be a precedent, and those who want to take advantage of it will appear, if not in this tournament, then in the next.
There's no point in arguing here; they will be found, you can be sure of it. :)
Therefore, there will be no exceptions.
And regarding exceptions, should I remind you about the first stage of the BLITZ?
Sincerely.
