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.
Error Details:
Share Link
Posts from Rules for organizing, conducting, and participating in online Heroes of Might and Magic III tournaments.
Piterius I also believe that in such an important matter as the tie-breaker, it's random. I think additional matches are a logical continuation. This is practiced in football, for example: Serie A, the Netherlands (goal difference and head-to-head results don't even count, so as not to leave the outcome of the entire tournament to chance).
РП (Реальное папство!) *Автосейвы не беру и не даю.
Do you think it's fair to challenge someone like that? The rules were established beforehand, weren't they? You could have made suggestions, but there weren't any. And then, out of nowhere, things just spiraled out of control...
Don't exaggerate about the "challenge." Fairness is both concrete and relative. I agree with you about the "cancer" analogy, but put yourself in my shoes – I'm trying to use every opportunity.
The judges' decision seems a bit off, in my opinion!!! Dear Peterius, you are right. There are 3 players with an equal number of wins, and each has a clear advantage over their opponent. I personally vote to give them 2 weeks as an exception. Since the opponents are evenly matched, at least Mizrael and Peterius!!!
Guys, are you serious? The tournament rules were discussed for two months, including this point. Changing the tournament regulations during the tournament itself is absurd. I could now declare that I've changed my mind about participating after the decision has already been made, and Pit spent half a day communicating with me and then with Artem. How would this request differ from yours?
Guys, are you serious? The tournament rules were discussed for two months, including this point. Changing the tournament regulations during the tournament itself is absurd.
I don't think anyone is being unreasonable. It's just that the rule for determining the winner in case of a tie is unfair. What difference does it make what's written in the ranking table? It's not an indicator of a player's strength.
Another question is that, even though it's unfair, it was written a long time ago, and no one challenged it, which means everyone agrees.
Preds, you're being too harsh. Your situation is somewhat different and not comparable. Unfortunately, I don't remember the moment when the two-month discussion of the rules was announced; I probably missed that process. Before the start, I didn't even think about challenging anything out of respect for the organizers, although I kept the situation with the "triumvirate" in mind. And like everyone else, I probably thought it wouldn't affect me. Moreover, when Pete announced the possible outcomes in our group, we already had a save at 126, where I had 10 angels standing before the next console – I was more than confident in a positive outcome. It's a pity we didn't finish earlier. Personally, I'm not challenging the rules; if the opponents are against it, the issue is closed and forgotten.
From each group, the top 2 players with the highest number of points advance to the playoffs. In case of a tie in points within a group, the player with the higher seasonal rating from the summer of 2009 advances. If the seasonal ratings are also equal, the player with the higher permanent rating on the date of the group stage's conclusion advances. If there's still a tie, the player who completed their group stage matches the fastest (based on reports in this thread) advances.
We thought about this point for a long time. Why did we decide on this? There are many participants, and the players are strong; there are 8 groups of 5 people each. The probability of players scoring the same number of points is very high, which has been confirmed. A strong criterion was needed to determine the ranking within the group. Additional games were ruled out because it would have prolonged the tournament. Let's look at the current situation: additional games are needed in groups C, E, F, G, and H. This means extending the group stage by at least a month. Then, our participants who didn't meet the deadlines would also want to finish their games. And groups A, B, and D would be waiting. And what if the situation repeats itself after the additional games? Another round? Speed of playing matches is a good criterion. But what if opponents who scored the same number of points played their last match against each other? We used the summer rating as the criterion. First, it's clear. Second, it encourages player activity. Perhaps it would be fairer to use the permanent rating as the criterion, but there's an organizational aspect to consider. We would need to use the rating from a specific date, but it's not entirely clear how to determine this date in advance, and whether it will coincide with when Vitaly has time to calculate the next rating and when our stage ends.
Is it unfair? Provide a fair criterion, and I will gladly use it in the next tournament.
We took the summer rating as a criterion. Firstly, it is clear. Secondly, it encourages player activity.
Activity in the summer season, but not in this particular tournament. Pit for LM
Is it unfair? Provide a fair criterion, and I will gladly use it in the next tournament.
For example, give an advantage to the one who finished their matches the fastest (this is exactly what encourages activity). Since bRitvo4kA finished earlier than anyone else, out of the 3 contenders, he is higher. Well, 2nd place can be decided by 1 additional game between Mizrael and Petya. I think 1 week will not critically affect the tournament.
If you are categorically against additional games, Piterius can be considered higher, since he defeated the first-place player. Another option is that Mizrael can be higher, since he won in the head-to-head match. I think both options are fairer than the summer rating.
All characters are fictional and have nothing to do with reality (c) :) this is just an example :)
Option 1 There is a certain probability that one of the 16 participants will withdraw, and then we can take someone from third place (priority goes to the one with more points). Piterius would be first in line, the only one with 3 points and only 3rd place.:eek: Option 2 Add a certain number of pairs, but it seems that at least 4 pairs need to be added, so that all players who took 3rd place also advance to the playoffs... look at the list of players: SpiriTT vbn Aldegir Piterius numOne Pysche_7 Oelm KostyaN In total, we get 12 pairs in the 1/8 finals :D 6 pairs in the 1/4 finals 3 pairs in the 1/2 finals A final "for three".... just like in the "Seasons" fixed-match tournament. P.S. The second option is more appealing, although it is more tedious for the organizers, but nevertheless, I do not see any obvious violation of anyone's rights.
I consider the rating option to be quite fair, because it integrates the player's experience on the resource. With a decent level of play, it's not too difficult to climb quickly. For example, AliaSmehova, in just 13 recorded games on HeroesWorld, is already in 11th place overall and 2nd in the autumn season. The higher the rated players you beat, the more points you earn.
I consider the rating variant quite fair, because it integrates the player's experience on the resource. With a decent level of play, it's not that hard to climb quickly. For example, AliaSmehova, with just 13 recorded games on HeroesWorld, is already 11th in the General and 2nd in the autumn [rating]. The higher-ranked players you beat, the more points you get.
And what if I don't have time to play 13 games — does that mean I deserve less to make the playoffs in the "Favorites-2" tournament? Given that three players have the same number of points.
This rating doesn't show anything, open it and take a look... Or do you think that Samurai in 67th place, Volland in 80th, and Disander in 81st during the summer somehow integrate something? A system for identifying the strongest player is really needed, even if it's just TC3 as a last resort. Who played earlier also doesn't matter - it often depends on the opponent, not on themselves.
P.S. I understand Peterius on a human level, but it's like a rule:(....
So, yes, it will serve as motivation to play on the site. And if you choose opponents with the highest rating, five to ten games will be enough to overtake the competition. But if there isn't time for games, where will you find time for additional matches?
For Javdet: If a player has only played a few games, it's understandable that it doesn't show. But I'm sure that after a dozen or so games, the site would show an approximate level of their skill. I think that the rating is a collection of game statistics in one number and can be a criterion.
Forrest
