Posts from Let's organize a tournament.

I generally agree with this scheme, except for the point about "strong" and "weak" players in terms of the number of players who will advance to the next stage. There should be at least an equal number of qualifying spots, but it shouldn't be the case that "strong" players have 2-3 times more of them... Let me explain why: - Firstly, what criteria will be used to divide players into "strong" and "weak"? - Secondly, who will be responsible for ranking players according to the above principle? - Thirdly, won't the proposed rules discourage new players? - Fourthly, why create an "ELITE"? (In my opinion, this detrimental rule already ruined the Heroic Portal website...) - Fifthly, it should be interesting for all participants in the tournament, not just a specific group. The idea of having strong and weak players is correct in principle, but without prioritizing the number of qualifying spots. P.S. It's been a long time coming, but it's time to introduce a rating system for Heroes of Might and Magic V on this site!

In my opinion, random race selection is not the right approach, and I am against it, as race selection is also a part of the strategic battle. It is possible to divide the players into strong and weak, but it will take a lot of time (if done correctly) and cause a lot of controversy. I suggest doing this for the next tournament. As for the race selection as I proposed, especially if a decent number of players join (and it seems like they are), playing two games will take too long. My suggestion: 1. Team Edition + IRMG (Individual Race Matchmaking Games) 2. Round-robin tournament with groups of 9 people, where each player plays each race once. We can create 2-3 groups. In the playoffs, only standard race selection.

I will divide players into strong and weak based on the results of the previous tournament, as I mentioned before. Roughly speaking, if many players register, the top 16 finalists will be considered strong. If not many register, the top 8 players, and so on. There should be a different number of qualifying spots to ensure we have a good final. I don't think this system will discourage new players – if a new player is truly strong, they will be in the "strong" group from the next tournament; if not, they can play with players of a similar level... I'm already considering calculating the rankings myself. If we organize tournaments on a regular basis, I think I will do that.

As practice shows, it's not worth having more than 5 games in the group stage – people get tired. So, it will be better to have more groups, but with 5-6 people in each.

Hmm... I don't like the idea of having more "easy" matches for the "strong" players. It will turn out that only they will be playing. Why can't we create a round-robin system with "strong" and "weak" players proportionally in each group? And I don't quite understand how your idea will help create a "normal" final (and what even is a "normal" final?!).

I think we can do it this way. Let each participant assign themselves to one of the groups – conditionally strong and conditionally weak. From each group, an equal number of players are selected (approximately 60-70%). The number should be the same, and then a playoff is held, where the first-place player from group A plays against the last-place player from group B, and so on. All newcomers and lesser-known players (for whom no well-known player can vouch, for example) are immediately placed in group B.

I agree that no more than 30% of players should be eliminated from the groups in the group stage, as they will still face stronger opponents in the elimination rounds. Random selection can be introduced in the group stage if there is no division into weak and strong players.

Hmm... I don't like the idea of having more "easy" matches for the "strong" players. It will turn out that only they will be playing. Why can't we create a system where "strong" and "weak" players are proportionally distributed in each group? And I don't quite understand how your idea will help create a "normal" final (and what even is a "normal" final?!).

Well, what is the point of the tournament? I think it's to identify the strongest players and, if possible, do so more accurately, right? Usually, for this purpose, the "top" players are simply scattered across different groups in the group stage, and then, in 90% of cases, the seeded players make it to the final. This is done so that a player who has the potential to be in the top four, for example, doesn't get eliminated in the qualifying stage. This can still be done now. But some people don't like this scheme because playing against someone who doesn't know how to play is perceived as a waste of time, and often unknown players play a couple of games and then drop out, which makes it difficult to keep track of things and is generally annoying. That's why the idea of an alternative to seeding emerged – the top 16 (for example) from the previous tournament play among themselves – there are likely to be fewer "random" players and less uninteresting games. But we need to compensate for the fact that we are pitting good players against each other in the qualifying rounds, so there should be more "easy" spots in their groups. Therefore, I suggest making groups of 6 people, for example, but the top 4 places from the "strong" groups advance, and the 1st and 2nd places from the "weak" groups. This will create an incentive to take higher places and compete for every position throughout the tournament, and not just for the top 3, for example, because the tournament result will be taken into account in the future. Then we can also create a ranking.
Well, that's my suggestion. If you don't like it, we'll do it the way the majority wants, it's you who will be playing...

It's just that there isn't much activity: we can't even get 16 people together. :(
Maybe it would make sense to start a vote based on a tournament format?

yes - there aren't many people here(( - maybe start a registration? and depending on the number of people and their skill level, we'll see? if there are 10 experienced players who won't drop out during the tournament, we can make 2 groups and start?) and the rules can be semi-flexible - everyone is an adult, so they can agree among themselves before the game, right?

Of course, registration is required; you can't do anything in Moscow without it.

Since I'm a fan of templates, I suggest a tournament using the Rainbow template – it's quite a challenging, interesting, and generally well-designed template. I also like the idea of each race being played once in the group stage, so I propose that. TE is up for discussion (I'm in favor of it), and IRMG is a must.

I fully support this proposal!

Hello everyone! Based on experience, a tournament should follow a schedule of 1 month for the group stage and 1 month for the final stage; otherwise, interest is lost.

a normal idea about strong and weak units – it would actually make the game more interesting to play. And let's get started already!

Hello everyone. It's possible that in a group of 6 strong players, the 5-6 players who don't make it through (as suggested above) might be significantly better than 1-2 of the weaker players who do. That also seems unfair. I think it would be better to distribute the strong players across different groups. But first, we need a named registration system. I'm still deciding whether or not to participate, so I'm observing for now. Maybe, after learning the rules and the number of players and groups, I'll feel more inclined to join. But in my opinion, it's better to extend the tournament, starting later, but gathering a larger number of high-quality and numerous participants, rather than rushing it with whoever is available. Sometimes I can play a couple of games a week, and sometimes I don't play for two weeks, and then I get kicked out.