Posts from Is a fan-made balance training session necessary? Auto-translated

To improve your skills and dominate Chinese players on Balance, you shouldn't organize silly tournaments, but rather focus on training.

.
I understand. Well, we're interested in that :). Including "organizing silly tournaments"... it's for fun, for the soul, for the interest, so to speak. Everything is easy, without pressure, without forcing anyone to participate ;)
P.S. "Clown Tournament" sounds good, by the way. Or maybe "Acrobats and Jesters" - like, acrobats are balancing...

Goal - to annoy (or rather, to "torment" the template, what did you think? ;) ) the Balance.

Including "organizing clownish tournaments"... for fun, for the soul, for the sake of interest, so to speak.

The witness is confused in their testimony...

to Wicc, please answer, which of the tournaments currently held on HW would you categorize as "clownish"?

Loi and I have decided to hold a tournament on the balance template, but the format will depend on the number of people who want to play. Please also express your preferences regarding the rules: Chinese rules (160%, full random, L-U) or HW rules at 130%, with hero selection and, probably, with the dungeon.

to Wicc, please answer, which of the tournaments currently held on HW would you categorize as "clownish"?

I'll answer in general terms – a clownish tournament is a non-serious tournament that doesn't aim to identify the strongest player as a sporting goal, but rather is closer to a show, organized or spontaneous.

Such tournaments are also needed because they diversify the gameplay. I am currently running such a tournament on the Portal – "Chaos".

Here, the initial goal was to master Balance in order to prepare for international matches. This is a completely different task, in many ways the opposite of fun.

Therefore, when ideas like "King of the Hill" in your performance, whining from Loy, and the like begin, it makes one doubt the correctness of the course understood by the leaders.

Sorry if I expressed myself too harshly :). No offense...

The witness is confused in their testimony...

Let me clarify, there is no contradiction... The initial training in Balance, and its wider implementation, I believe, is quite acceptable, even in the form of a game, a "fun pastime," a fan activity. Later, yes, training in the format indicated by Vic, if there is interest, will become the main focus...

Here, the initial goal was to master Balance in order to prepare for international matches

As far as I remember, such direct goals were not declared...

whining in the performance of Loy

You didn't express yourself in a "too harsh" way, but in a provocative way...
I hope you understand that I also have words in a similar tone in my vocabulary. But I won't use them :). And you, please, refrain from such offensive remarks and personal attacks. This is unpleasant personally and, most importantly, directly harms the future tournament. I assume you don't have such goals...
P.S. let's remember Leopold the Cat once again :)

I support the organizer's initiative; I haven't played with this template before, but I'm willing to try it out – my ICQ is 463459046, and I'm open to any tournament format.

If there's a tournament with balanced maps, I'll participate. Otherwise, you could even hold a tournament on panic maps and all other templates, including mini-nostalgia maps, like the one on Jebus Cross.

Regarding Panic, there are some doubts. It's a balance-oriented build, and no particular unique features were found. Plus, it's not widely played abroad.

I'm currently considering two options:
1. A simple round-robin tournament with a small number of players (6-8), featuring prizes and avatar rewards.
2. Actually organizing a fan club for balance enthusiasts. We would provide members with the opportunity to arrange games whenever they want. To incentivize participation, we could introduce a point system like this:
0 points for a loss;
5 points for a draw;
10 points for a win + a bonus (1 point for each of the opponent's previous wins).
For example, if player A has 4 wins, and player B defeats them, player B receives 10 + 4 = 14 points. The organizers (i.e., me) would regularly update the table with wins and accumulated points.
This way, players will be motivated to play against more successful opponents, as they become a more "valuable target" due to the bonus.
One match every two weeks. The leaders will have a choice: either try to stay safe by playing against a weaker opponent, or pull ahead by playing against a stronger one. (After all, they are leaders, and they always have more options). Skipping a round is self-punishing – you simply won't receive any points.
Please offer your criticism. :smile11:

Here, the initial plan was to master Balance in order to prepare for international matches. This is a completely different task, in many ways the opposite of casual play.

I don't see any contradiction; the goal is being achieved... potential members of the future team (PMT) will naturally separate themselves (mainly based on points scored and their attitude towards the games).
Others will play for fun, and there's nothing wrong with that. Moreover, even if someone from the PMT plays casually, it doesn't necessarily mean they will be less prepared for the inter-resource competition.
The most traditional and common way of learning in any field is repeated engagement with the subject (with various local goals).
The first approach involves quickly covering the main points of the entire subject being studied... there are many examples, such as quickly reading a book.
The PMT goes through this stage even before the tournament starts, by studying the scheme, reading reports, and generating offline/online scenarios. Forcing everyone to do this is what constitutes the "circus"!

Added 1 second later
1. I vote for the 2nd scheme, "fan club," with the prospect of doing this for the main templates. After all, it is often seen in ICQ status or on Metroland: "I'll play Balance," "I'll play 8mm6 TE," "I'll play Panic":smile01:
2. I'm FOR "Chinese" rules:smile01:
3. a system of point counting, etc..."Purple":smile01:

for a win, 10 points + bonus (1 point for each opponent's win).
For example, player A has 4 wins, player B defeats him and receives 10+4=14 points. Please feel free to criticize:smile11:

I am against it; in my opinion, each win should be valued equally. However, Berger's tie-breaker looks similar when the scores are equal.

Yes, it looks like Berger's coefficient, but it is calculated after the tournament, in case of a tie in points. And here, in real-time mode, it will be visible who is the leader and what bonus will be given for defeating him.