Rules for organizing, conducting, and participating in online Heroes of Might and Magic III tournaments. — Tournament Committee

Van

16 years ago

Auto-translated

The idea of having permanent and regular tournaments is interesting, but I'm afraid it's not very viable, as there are very few people who want to participate in tournaments, as evidenced by the fan tournament on balance. However, the games played in tournaments should be more significant in the overall ranking than fun games, definitely. For example, a bonus coefficient could be applied based on the number of participants in the tournament, and there should be a barrier of 5-10 games, so that there is an objective picture in the overall ranking, and some comparisons can be made based on it. IMHO. And also, in order to take data from it, it should be online, like on Dream, and not based on some outdated number, like the month of 1955. :D

Avern

16 years ago

Auto-translated

Firstly, don't bury the tournament's balance so early; it's only two days old. Secondly, let's ask ourselves: what is the purpose of creating a new rating, and what task will it perform?

bRitvo4kA

16 years ago

Auto-translated

Instantly calculated rating on HeroesWorld would be great, but that would still require a lot of work to implement. An update once a month is also not bad. The main purpose of the rating is to be able to view the complete statistics for each player.
Personally for me, tourney is not higher in importance than for-fun.

Avern

16 years ago

Auto-translated

The main problem with round-robin tournaments is that a player who has had a bad start has no incentive to finish the remaining matches. This leads to the problem of tech choices.

Avern

16 years ago

Auto-translated

For large tournaments, I suggest trying the following scheme:
1) Preliminary stage - selection using an Olympic system, 1-2-3 rounds with eight players. In this case, stronger players are deliberately paired with less experienced ones.
2) Main stage - round-robin tournament in 1 or 2 rounds. The composition of the round-robin tournament will be more balanced after the selection stage. And there will be less chance that a player in the round-robin tournament will lose, for example, 3 games in a row. And those who take 1st-3rd place will be allowed to skip the selection stage and go directly to the main stage in the next tournament. That is, combine the tournaments into a single system.

Pit for LM

16 years ago

Auto-translated

Dear players!
Tournament rules and the informal rules of personal communication among forum members are closely linked to the HW rules. This is simply how things have evolved historically.
Therefore, the moderators of our section would like to remind you of a few key Forum Rules—specifically those that, unfortunately, many forget.

- The use of profanity or offensive language in nicknames, avatars, messages, and signatures is prohibited.
For violating this prohibition, in accordance with the violation system, moderators are required to assign 10 violation points.

- Any direct or indirect insults toward users are prohibited... - 25 violation points.

- Any HeroesWorld user messages containing spam, flaming (verbal warfare), or trolling (provocative messages) will be deleted by moderators without notifying the user.
For flaming and trolling - 5 violation points each.

- Please avoid flooding (meaningless chatter) and off-topic content in your messages... In the event that a user's message consists entirely of flood or off-topic content, it will be deleted or moved by moderators without notifying the user. From 0.5 to 1 violation point.

- The registration of two accounts by a single user is also prohibited - 50 violation points.
18. The actions of HeroesWorld moderators and coordinators are not subject to discussion. If a HeroesWorld user disagrees with the legitimacy of their actions in accordance with the current HeroesWorld rules and the current moderator rules, they may, within two weeks from the moment the allegedly unlawful actions occurred, send a private message to the HeroesWorld administration with specific complaints regarding the actions of the moderators or coordinators, providing appropriate evidence of the illegitimacy of their actions according to the existing HeroesWorld rules.

According to the Violation System rules http://forum.heroesworld.ru/faq.php?faq=hw_help_system#faq_hw_help_system_violations:
1. Upon accumulating 100 violation points, the user's account is automatically blocked by the system.
2. One week after the account has been blocked, 5 violation points are deducted and the account is automatically unblocked.
3. The third account block is final, after which the account will no longer be unblocked.

Let us respect ourselves and other users, follow the forum rules, and make the moderators' work easier!

We also strongly request that players adhere to these rules in private communications. When we play for rating, we can choose our partners and ignore unpleasant opponents. In tournaments, this is impossible. Unfortunately, complaints from players regarding unethical behavior in private messages have increased. It has reached the point where appeals are being sent to the AC, from both participants and tournament organizers, demanding that these issues be resolved and that they be protected from insults and attacks. We really do not want to add users to the Blacklist for disgraceful behavior or warn tournament organizers about potential problems of this nature.

Pit for LM

16 years ago

Auto-translated

Here is a draft of the rules for completing unfinished games. I think I've covered everything; please suggest reasonable amendments, and I'll incorporate them. However, please refrain from posting comments like "I'm not interested, it's unnecessary, I play for fun, I don't read the rules." Only those who need it should participate in the discussion.

Algorithm for completing unfinished games when one of the players is delaying the process.
Situations:
- A game has started, been paused, and one of the opponents is avoiding completing it (not responding or citing numerous reasons).
- A disconnect occurs during a game, followed by one of the players disappearing.
- No approximate completion time was agreed upon beforehand.

I. The player wishing to complete the game (Plaintiff) attempts to arrange a time to complete the game via ICQ and forum PMs at least 3 times within 1 week after the interruption/pause.
If the opponent (Defendant) does not respond at all or refuses to set a specific time, then
II. The player wishing to complete the game describes the situation in this thread (when the game started, under what circumstances it was interrupted, what was agreed upon, how many times and when they tried to call the opponent to play) and invites the opponent to complete the game, indicating possible time slots that are convenient for them. The link to the post is sent via ICQ and обязательно via forum PM, and a copy of the PM is sent to any member of the Arbitration Committee (AC).
The player invited to complete the game has 2 weeks to respond in this thread and agree on a time. If there is no response in the thread, the AC awards a technical victory to the Plaintiff, and any member of the AC posts the victory in the "Online Game Reports and Confirmations" thread.
If the Defendant is ready to complete the game and has indicated a time that is acceptable to both players, then everything is fine. We await the report.
III. If an agreement on the time to complete the game is not reached between the players within 2 weeks, the AC assigns a time to the opponents - a weekend within the next 2 weeks - and monitors compliance with the agreement. In case of repeated postponement, the time is assigned in the same way. If one of the players does not appear at the appointed time (a delay of no more than 1 hour is allowed), the victory is awarded to the player who did appear. If both players do not appear within 1 hour, the game is canceled, and no claims regarding it will be accepted.
To avoid prolonged delays due to numerous postponements, at least 10 game days must be played in one session. The player who wants to postpone the game before this point will receive a technical defeat.
IV. Players are prohibited from opening save files until either:
a) the AC has made a decision on the disputed game;
b) the game has been completed amicably.

That is, we chase after the opponent for 1 week, then we write in this thread, we wait for an answer and try to agree for 2 weeks, and we try to complete the game for another 2 weeks. We do not open save files.

In reply to Pit for LM

КостяN

16 years ago

Auto-translated

Thanks for the topic! But I don't agree with everything.

Pit for LM

I. A player who wants to finish the game (Plaintiff) attempts to agree on a time to finish the game within 1 week after the game is interrupted/postponed at least 3 times.

I think this isn't very good... What if the plaintiff only has time to play on weekends, or doesn't have time at all during the week due to real-life commitments? Wouldn't that be a reason for the game, which is already rare, to be abandoned?:confused: (I think 1-2 times, not 3, should be enough, and the time limit should be 10 days instead of a week...)

In reply to Pit for LM

Alex_R

16 years ago

Auto-translated

I haven't encountered the issue of an unfinished game in a while, but I remember there was a situation at the Adelaide tournaments regarding finishing a game, and the essence of it was as follows: If a game is postponed, the priority remains the exact time it started on any of the subsequent days... and the most important day is exactly one week after the agreement. In general, you tell your opponent - I'm ready tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, etc., at the same time. If one of you can't, then the deadline is in a week at the same time - whoever can't make it loses! P.S. I agree that sometimes a week is not enough, but 10 days seems awkward, and two weeks is too long.

Pit for LM

16 years ago

Auto-translated

Pit for LM

I. A player who wishes to finish the game (Plaintiff) attempts to arrange a time to finish the game via ICQ and private messages on the forum within 1 week after the game has been interrupted/postponed at least 3 times.

KostyaN

Well, it seems to me that this isn't very good... What if the plaintiff only has time to play games on weekends, or doesn't have time at all during the week due to real-life commitments? So, is this a reason for a very rare game to simply disappear?:confused: (It should be 1-2 times, not 3, and not a week, but at least 10 days, IMHO...)

I agree. Maybe it should be like this?
I. A player who wishes to finish the game (Plaintiff) attempts to arrange a time to finish the game via ICQ and private messages on the forum within at least 1 week after the game has been interrupted/postponed at least 3 times.
That is, the requirement to finish the game in this thread should appear no earlier than a week after the interruption. And you need to try to arrange it yourself, without involving a judge. Only after the player is sure that the opponent is ignoring him, then start writing on the forum.

Alex_R

In the case where the game is postponed, the priority remains the same time as when the game started on any of the following days... and the most priority day is exactly one week after the agreement.
In general, you tell your opponent - I'm ready tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, etc., at the same time. If one of you can't, then the deadline is in a week at the same time - whoever can't, loses!

That's a good idea. But will this time be convenient for the judge, who is not obliged to be online 24/7 and monitor the technical aspects?
We need to think about it.

R55Max

15 years ago

Auto-translated

I've always considered the following to be unfair:
Burger, in-person match - that's fine, but the early or late time of the game shouldn't affect the outcome. At a minimum, there should be a rematch (blitz at 200%, for example, in Might & Magic). With equal results, you should never resort to such unfair tactics, if only because these scenarios (draws) are calculated in advance, and it's therefore not difficult to calculate your time, etc. You could, for example, play a fun game with a teammate, and that game would count as a tiebreaker in case of a draw.

Moreover, if this is announced in advance, no one will argue, because everything is recorded according to the rules! And the outcome will remain legitimate.

I wrote this here because the OFB (Online Fighting Battle) is considered a qualifier, and no other tournaments are comparable in principle for participation in the FB (Fighting Battle), and therefore such a principled approach to participants in the FB should be accompanied by an equally principled and correct approach... You need to select players based on their strength (results), and not on anything else.

In reply to R55Max

numOne

15 years ago

Auto-translated

R55Max

I have always considered the following to be unfair:
Berger, a personal match – that’s fine, but the early or late time of the game should not affect the result. At the very least, a rematch should be played (a blitz game at 200%, for example, or a match on the MK map). If the results are equal, it is never acceptable to resort to such unfair practices, if only because such scenarios (draws) are calculated in advance, and therefore it is not difficult to calculate one's time, etc. For example, you could play a fun game with a teammate, which would count as a tiebreaker in case of a tie.

Moreover, if this is announced in advance, no one will argue, because the results are recorded according to the rules! And the solution will remain legitimate.

I wrote this here because the OFB is considered a qualifying round, and no other tournaments can compare to it in terms of participation in the FB, and therefore such a principled approach to the participants in the FB should be accompanied by an equally principled and correct approach... Participants should be selected based on the strength (results) of the players, and not on anything else.

It so happens that, on average, 20% of games are not played in the group stages – people who have lost their first games lose motivation. Another, more pressing problem is the delay in deadlines. How can this be addressed?
This is where the system comes in: Berger > personal match > deadlines > coin toss – this is, in my opinion, the optimal system for Heroes. I believe that all group stage matches should be played according to this system.
And friendly matches cannot be avoided.
Besides, equal results, as you say, are quite rare. Usually, everything is decided in the Berger, and if not there, then in the personal match.

In reply to numOne

R55Max

15 years ago

Auto-translated

numOne

It just so happens that, on average, 20% of games are not played in the group stages – people who have lost their first games lose motivation. Another, more pressing problem is the delay in deadlines. How can we combat this?
This is where the system comes in: burger > personal match > deadlines > coin toss – in my opinion, this is optimal for Heroes. I think all group tournaments should be played according to this system.
And you can't avoid friendly matches.
Besides, equal results, as you say, are quite rare. Usually, everything is decided in the burger match, and if not there, then in the personal match.

I agree about the motivation, but isn't that their problem (the unmotivated players)? The other, more pressing problem can also be solved. For example, you could add a clause to the rules: "In the event of a tie in points in the group stage and the inability to determine a winner (the one who advances), the result of the last ranked game (or another tournament) will be taken into account." This way, fun games will also have weight, and if this clause is added to all tournaments, it will be much fairer and more prestigious to win in the rankings.

Ideally, a tournament calendar should be drawn up and made available to everyone, so that in January I know about the upcoming OFB tournament that starts in May, June, July, etc. Applications should be accepted, for example, until March 1st, June 1st if the start is in July. This way, people will know the composition of the groups a month or two before the start, and there will be an opportunity to test each other out (especially those who haven't played against each other) in ranked games.

Equal results have twice caused me to be eliminated in about 9 months :) and in each group tournament, the results are often close to equal. And it doesn't matter that it's rare, since it is possible in principle.

The delay in deadlines is resolved individually by communicating with each person who is behind, and the organizer makes a decision (I don't think it's difficult to sort this out, even if it requires technical assistance in some situations).

In reply to R55Max

Sevensan

15 years ago

Auto-translated

regarding extending deadlines. If a person doesn't meet the deadline, then it makes sense to consider the date of the game, as this is a violation of the rules in itself. In all other cases, it's a valid game, and there's nothing to argue about.

In reply to Sevensan

numOne

15 years ago

Auto-translated

Sevensan

regarding extending deadlines. If a player doesn't meet the deadline, then it only makes sense to consider the date of the game, as this is a violation of the rules in itself. In all other cases, the game should be counted, there is nothing to argue about.

This is only relevant in the case where all players have finished earlier, i.e., it was possible to identify players competing to leave the group with an equal number of points, Berger score, and head-to-head record (a tie) before the deadline – in this case, everything is open for discussion, and a decisive game can be scheduled without any problems. In reality, however, it is unclear until the very end who will advance, and the outcome of one match can change everything.
Run a couple of tournaments – test it in practice.