Posts from An attempt to organize a team tournament between countries!

I've never been great at geography, but Russia can be divided into federal districts:
1. Central (Moscow)
2. Southern (Rostov)
3. Northwestern (St. Petersburg)
4. Far Eastern (Khabarovsk)
5. Siberian (Novosibirsk)
6. Ural (Yekaterinburg)
7. Volga (Nizhny Novgorod)

I think each district (perhaps not the Far East) could field a decent team.

The rules must be the same for all players and all games; otherwise, you will doom your tournament to failure. People will simply leave. There should be no exceptions or teams with fewer players. Otherwise, there will be abuse of the game, with the strongest player competing against everyone else (because it seems like that's allowed!). Ten people have already told you that you can't please everyone. So, set the rules and ask if everyone agrees, instead of this... you also said something about a guy...

Regarding the rules, I agree. Let's try to complete the teams or merge several teams. We'll see how it goes. This is just an option. Or, as a last resort, for the decisive third game, we can allow a player to repeat (as in team tournaments on cardboard). I'm still waiting for a response from China, from the Korean player (thanks, Stiky), and from the French player.

When it comes to show tournaments, I immediately remember the tournament organized by Tvaryna on HotA. It was a great show – a minimum number of participants, a good lineup, and everyone wearing tracksuits. It was a pleasure for the viewers; there were no lackluster matches, a quick resolution, and it was even enjoyable to rewatch. In short, everything was geared towards the audience.

And most importantly, none of the participants even complained about playing on the new version with mandatory streaming. Because the organizer, when setting up the tournament, said: "This is the tournament, these are the conditions! Are you in?"

I agree. In my opinion, a tournament should have a maximum of 3-4 teams from Russia (otherwise, it doesn't really qualify as an international tournament, as our country initially has 3-4 times higher chances of winning, depending on the number of teams). Which specific teams should be decided through qualifiers if there are more than one application for a single designated region.

You can create the rules yourself, and you can put any controversial points up for a vote among the captains of the teams participating in the final stage.

More determination, less doubt. Based on my life experience, I can say that if you keep debating and procrastinating, the sponsor might lose interest or find a more interesting use for their money, which I don't think anyone here is particularly interested in.

Good luck and patience!

Thank you. While the discussion is ongoing, a lot of work is being done in parallel. So, the organization of the tournament is not standing still. Every day there are some events and news. So far, no sponsor has backed out (but everything happens for the first time), although there have been delays in payments, and I covered them with my own funds. But the higher the amount, the more difficult it is to do. For example, I wouldn't be able to cover such an amount – unless through responsive subscribers.

Personally, I see the division of Russia as being at most by republics. I don't want to divide it by regions, so that the tournament doesn't turn from a tournament of countries into a tournament of regions. A tournament of regions is also being considered as an option, but in case of an insufficient number of teams. There is still a lot of work to be done to make the tournament happen at all, to gather a quorum of teams, to assemble a team to cover the tournament, to write the rules, to prepare graphics (in the form of intro sequences), to provide for various scenarios as much as possible, and so on. I don't even know for sure yet how everything will go. But I'm setting the goal to be "ready to go" within 2 weeks!

Added 14 hours 7 minutes ago
The Korean team has contacted us. We are starting to work on this team for participation in the tournament.

Or maybe chubby Kim Jong-un likes ponies?:smile23:

Right. A bit of graphics and more information for discussion.
As for the graphics — a rough draft of the tournament splash screen, as well as 2 visual examples of the tournament format.







For now, we tentatively have 11 national teams + 2 separate applications (Siberia and Donbass):
1. Russia
2. Ukraine
3. Belarus
4. Lithuania
5. Poland
6. Hungary
7. Romania
8. Estonia
9. Czech Republic
10. Serbia
11. South Korea

There are no responses yet from China, France, Bulgaria (Battanas is silent). Moldova, Armenia, Georgia and similar ones will most likely not assemble either. Therefore, a tournament format with 12 teams is currently being considered. If all current teams end up playing in the tournament, the last national team could be: a second team from Russia, Donbass, or a world team for all who wish to join.

Now regarding the tournament formats. The sponsor wants the national teams not to be eliminated after the first games and to have chances to continue playing after a defeat. And so that there aren't too few games. I see the following options.

If we divide the participants into 3 groups of 3 teams, we end up with 54 - 81 matches between players (depending on whether teams play 2 or 3 matches against each other). If teams are given 1 week for each round, we get a tournament lasting about two and a half months. In the group stage, we have 3 rounds, each with 4 encounters between national teams (about 8-12 single games per week). And in the first playoff round, we have 6 encounters at once (12-18 single games per week). Then eliminations of teams begin and the load on the tournament hosts drops significantly. But in any case, managing with three streamer-commentators (Me, Ayve, and Nicostar) will be extremely difficult. Such a format seems very problematic without the help of other streamers.

But there is also an accelerated version of this format. In the accelerated version, one of the three teams is eliminated during the group stage (after 2 games). Then in the playoffs, we get 4 encounters in the very first round (8-12 games per week). After that, both the tournament duration and the load on the hosts decrease.

The most optimal option for the hosts would be a pre-arranged game schedule with 1-3 games every day (for example, a full encounter between two national teams). But such a format requires large national teams, while we are planning teams with a very limited number of players, and the chance that a team can adapt to such an option is minimal. Therefore, we either need to give 1 week for teams to make arrangements, or create a game schedule, but for Saturday-Sunday mornings. But even in this case, three streamer-commentators won't be enough. Each person can take on 1 full game per day (in rare cases 2 games). And there will be quite a few games. I see no point in scheduling games for Friday evening. Otherwise, the chance of saves and rescheduling increases, and playing with teams like Korea will be difficult due to the time difference.

Now let's consider a format where playoffs start immediately without a group stage. In this format, we get about 38-57 single games between players. The tournament duration is about 7 weeks, which is quite dynamic for a team tournament. The load in the first two rounds is also quite serious and then declines. Additional assistants will be very much needed here, at least for the start of the tournament. And I'm not even talking about backups yet. For every 2-3 streamers, one spare is needed in case technical or life problems arise.

I will consider various clever solutions for the tournament format.

Added after 34 minutes
Another pressing problem: the list of templates. Since all games are intended to be streamed, on one hand, we need fast-paced templates without significant delays. On the other hand, there must remain options for powering up, especially if the start was poor. That is, a game format with a match duration of 2-3 weeks with rare delays up to 4 weeks would be ideal. I looked through the forum a bit and found the following templates that fit such a format:
- 2sm3d(3)
- Skirmish (including mirrored)
- Jebus Cross XL (including mirrored)
- Jebus Cross L (including mirrored), especially if ГО is weakened for exit on the second week.
- speed

Anarchy would be suitable as the most trouble-free template in terms of monitoring violations, but its occasional prolonged games don't fit well. Balance — it was too unbalanced in the games I saw and played myself. I also sketched out approximate schemes for new templates that I could try to tailor for the tournament. But this is a risky idea since they won't be properly tested. And risk is not always justified, especially at such a level.

Current templates can be tailored to size M+U or L, XL size




















I am ready to consider your options for templates that can actually be played from morning to evening in about 10 hours, no more.

We need to assemble a preliminary pool of templates, which we will use as a basis in negotiations with the teams. After that, changes can be made to it

No response yet from China, France, or Bulgaria (Battanas is silent). Moldova, Armenia, Georgia, and similar countries are also unlikely to participate.

I would really like to see a team from Moldova :smile09:

I would play for Siberia if they took me!)

I would really like to see a team from Moldova :smile09:

Well, if you really want to, I can register as representing Moldova :D
Although, I could also strengthen Bulgaria, and I'm still considering an offer from Turkey.

According to the tournament scheme. I hope that what I write below will help all tournament organizers in general, not just Arma. Because, for example, the Swiss systems sometimes favored on HeroesWorld with a vague number of rounds are also "that kind of thing." :rolleyes:

The Main Thing - in my opinion, for all tournaments with an unpredictable random number of participants - the first group stage should convert the random number into two brackets - winners and losers. In our case, probably - 4 teams in the winners bracket, 4 in the losers bracket.

This task is not solved by a rigid setup of groups of 4 participants. For example: 12 participants. 3 groups of 4 participants. The output gives us 3 first places, 3 second places. And we get "who knows" how to fit this further into a playoff scheme without additional indicators.

This task is solved by a rigid setup of the number of groups in the first stage being a multiple of 2. From which the first places advance to the winners bracket, the second places to the losers bracket.

Groups. The simpler the better. Groups of 3 participants and groups of 4 participants are both suitable for achieving the goal.

Groups of 3 participants. It's simple. 3 rounds. In each round, only two participants play against each other, one rests. The intensity is reduced for both judges and teams, which is good.
1st place - winners bracket. 2nd place - losers bracket.

Groups of 4 participants. The double-elimination scheme, which is used everywhere in esports, and finally also on HeroesWorld - in the Final Battle. It is also played over three rounds. A total of 5 games.
Round 1. Match 1 and Match 2 (initial draw).
Round 2. Match 3 - "Winners" - winners of matches 1 and 2. Match 4 - "Losers" - losers of matches 1 and 2.
Round 3. Match 5 - "Decider" - loser of match 3 vs winner of match 4.
The winner of Match 3 advances from 1st place (to the winners bracket).
The winner of Match 5 advances from 2nd place (to the losers bracket).
Again, in round 3 the intensity decreases - only one match is played, not two. One participant has already secured first place and rests, one has already been eliminated.

Classic round-robin groups, each against each (whether 4 participants or more) - regularly look questionable, as there are constantly meaningless games in the last rounds or a chance for collusion. But in this scheme, there are no meaningless games at all.
(clarification - I have nothing against large round-robin groups on HeroesWorld in Novice or Favorites, where one of the tournament's goals is to let everyone play more - that is a special case and is not relevant here).

Since we have a team tournament, and teams can tie with each other - one nuance - in any case of equal points and the need to somehow choose which team advances - the solution is ONE decisive game between the strongest players of the teams (to even theoretically eliminate the possibility of the decisive game being played by the strongest player instead of another).

Any number of participants (teams) can be converted into groups of 3-4 participants. And from the group stage, proceed to the playoff stage with double elimination.

If we have 12 teams - that means 4 groups of 3.
If we have 15 - that means 4 groups of 4+4+4+3.

27 teams? 8 groups of 4+4+4+3+3+3+3+3.
And playoffs with 8 winners, 8 losers.

A unified solution for any number of participants. 3 rounds of group stage and double-elimination playoffs.
Although maybe it won't suit Arma at all - double elimination might be too slow for this tournament?

in the case of 12 teams, I suggest 2 groups of 6 teams each, followed by a) the top 2 teams go to the winners bracket, and the next 2 go to the losers bracket; b) 1st vs. 4th, and 2nd vs. 3rd in a single or double elimination bracket. In such groups, there will either be no easy matches or only one in the last round for one of the teams, and each team will play at least 5 matches.

I like the Armageddon format with 4 groups of 3 teams better.
It has both a group stage and playoffs for all teams, plus there are no meaningless matches.
The intro is great ;)

The splash screen is fine, but there's one major drawback. Personally, I will never represent Belarus under this pseudo-flag.

And when is the tournament approximately starting? I'm thinking there might be too many people who want to participate for Russia, and we'll have to choose based on unclear criteria, but maybe by that time the FB tournament will be over, and it will be clear.
And what if someone wants to participate for Russia but not through this portal, do they have the right to do so?