Posts from What do the official forums and the fan forums want?

Lately, our main FB and OFB Tournaments haven't been very exciting. On the one hand, this is due to the fact that the organizers of these tournaments – Artem, Pavel, and Andrey – left last year. There is a replacement for them. Tanya is ready to take on the organization of OFB. But this has raised a whole range of questions. First. Do we even need these tournaments? Or have they become boring? Or should we hold them less often? Or should we come up with new rules each time to add variety? For example, should the next tournament be an All-Random tournament? Second. Regarding the default version for both tournaments. Recently, we have seen a lot of activity in tournaments on SoD, but the last OFB did not generate much interest. Could this be due to the default WT version? We currently have many players who prefer SoD. On the other hand, the recent MP showed that WT specialists feel very uncomfortable on SoD, which is not good in the long run for future international tournaments. Third. The format of the FB tournament. In fact, the division into two tournaments – Qualifying and Final – was made specifically to hold a round-robin tournament in the final stage, which gives the most objective result. But round-robins are complicated by withdrawals, both for objective reasons and due to a lack of motivation after a poor start. If we continue to hold it as a knockout tournament, then we could combine OFB and FB into one tournament: a group stage – OFB, a certain number of participants advance from the groups, and the finalists from the previous FB are added, and then a Full Double Elimination. Therefore, we decided to conduct a poll and, based on its results, decide how to proceed. Please vote and share your wishes.

Or have they gotten boring already?

Or should they be held less often?

IMHO they should definitely be held less often. Since the player base in Heroes isn't 10,000 people, almost everyone knows each other, the skill level of all participants is roughly known (with each player having their own games against everyone else guaranteed), and interest drops. About once a year, like the main tournament on HeroesWorld, is perfectly fine. To keep the motivation going.

But have more of other tournaments! Preferably with the involvement of foreigners.

As for VoT - I can't make up my mind. And honestly, I don't really care about that issue that much :D

"If we continue to use the cup system, we could even merge the OFB and FB into one tournament: a group stage for the OFB, a certain number of participants advance from the groups, and the finalists from the previous FB are added, and then it's a Full Double Elimination."

+1

Actually, the division into two tournaments — the Qualifier and the Final — was made precisely to hold a round-robin in the final stage, which provides the most objective result. However, round-robins are complicated by withdrawals, both for objective reasons and due to a lack of motivation after a poor start.

There is only one problem here — the tournament's status does not provide motivation to give it your all (otherwise, after a poor start, players would compete to stay in for the next season). Although the tournament was intended to be the most prestigious on HeroesWorld. We need to analyze why this happened (maybe after Vlk's victory in that tournament, it suddenly lost its weight) and how to revive interest in it. And simply reducing the frequency of the tournaments won't be enough to solve this.

I initially created the current Facebook group for the Wargaming Tournament (WT) because, in reality, almost all games are played on that version. However, this might not suit everyone, and in the last six months, WT has somewhat faded, while SOD (presumably, a different platform or community) has gained momentum (favorites, newcomers, sk2tv, etc.). We need to monitor market trends and run the tournament on the platform that is in demand. Regarding the regulations: as Pete said, we should combine the Open Facebook Battle (OFB - group stage) and the Facebook Battle (FB - playoffs), with only the player who finishes in 1st place advancing to the next FB (!), and all other players being selected from scratch. There should be no overlap, meaning players from the current FB can participate in the selection process. It should be held once a year or less frequently.

I initially created the current Facebook-based league on the Wargaming.net platform because, in reality, almost all games are played on that version. However, this might not suit everyone, and over the past six months, Wargaming.net has somewhat faded, while SOD (Shades of Darkness) has gained momentum (favorites, newcomers, sk2tv, etc.). We need to monitor market trends and run the league on the platform that is in demand.
Regarding the regulations: as Pete said, we should combine the OFB (group stage) and FB (playoffs), with only the player who finishes in 1st place advancing to the next FB (!), and all other players being selected from scratch. There should be no overlap, meaning players from the current FB can participate in the selection process.
The league should be held once a year or less frequently.

I agree.

I would add that the OFB should definitely include seeding, and that it's not possible to hold a tournament on the Wargaming.net platform – there are too many bugs that are not fixed for months.

I'm not a tournament player, but I want to share my opinion. I think most players start the game on "The Succession Wars" (SoD), and they come to the site with that experience. It's easier to start tournaments on a familiar game rather than immediately learning a new one – this might even discourage some potential participants.
I have "The Shadow of Death" (TE) and "Horn of the Abyss" (HA), but I don't use them. Instead, I often use "Armageddon's Blade" (AB) – I guess it's nostalgia.

Regarding the version, if you look at the recent Tournaments and the buzz around them, you can draw certain conclusions: most Heroes players play SoD.

FB format.
If we continue to use the cup system, then we could even merge OFB and FB into one tournament: group stage - OFB, a certain number of participants advance from the groups, the finalists of the previous FB join them, and then it's Full Double Elimination.

and, moreover, only the player who took 1st place (!) advances to the next FB, everyone else qualifies from scratch. And there won't be any overlaps where players from the current FB cannot participate in the qualifiers.
Hold it once a year or less.

In my opinion, merging OFB and FB is also a good idea. It would become one big and important TOURNAment. And also the fact that only the player who takes 1st place advances to the next FB, while more spots in the playoffs will remain for players from the group stage, which will add incentive to get into the FB.

And also, perhaps we should introduce restrictions for signing up for the tournament, since this will still be the main tournament on HeroesWorld, so only already known players, players who have already participated in tournaments, and active newcomers should be allowed to sign up for the group stage.
PS: I ask for comments on this point.

Once a year might be too little; perhaps we should first hold the first combined tournament, see how long it lasts and with what interest it will go, and then, closer to autumn, assess the situation to see if there is a desire to play a second FB in the year.

Oh yes, and to add a twist to the tournament, also with Allrandom (honestly, the same pairs are already getting boring)

Well, it's time to close this thread.

Based on the voting:

- version - SoD;
- for those who voted for WT, we can organize a tournament "Real Boys visiting ХВ", since 6 out of 9 voters, it seems to me, associate themselves more with ХВ; accordingly, all other interested parties will also be able to participate;
- we will merge FB and OFB, especially since FB-5 is already coming to an end.

We'll decide on the system of conduct once it's clear how many participants there are. Currently, we are planning a mixed option.

We will try to start in the near future.

Still, the conclusion about the SOD version sounds hasty. Firstly, the result of 13-10 (I'll add my vote to the VT players) indicates a division of opinions rather than a clear victory. Secondly, I don't want to dwell on it, but the weight category of VT players and SOD players is unfortunately incomparable (if we take into account the track record of those who expressed their opinions). Unfortunately, declaring the SOD version as the winner will lead to this tournament being called anything, but it won't become a final, nor even a real battle; "sandbox championship" is a more fitting description. Therefore, I suggest looking for compromises, for example, by trying to divide the templates/versions. For instance, play L+U and less on SOD, and HL on VT.

I also didn't manage to vote – if needed, I would suggest playing SOD by default, but if both opponents agree on Warlord Tournament, let them play Warlord Tournament. Simply, if we believe Oelma, the veterans who prefer Warlord Tournament should be able to handle average players even in SOD, and they can play Warlord Tournament among themselves as much as they want.

I also fully support the Warlord Tavern, but I didn’t have time to vote.

First, the result of 13-10 (I'll add my vote to the VT players) indicates a division of opinions.

Isn't this news?

...Secondly, I didn't want to emphasize this too much, but the weight category of VT players and SOD players is unfortunately incomparable (if we take into account the track record of those who expressed their opinion...).

Never mind, we'll invite the Danish king and balance the track record...

Unfortunately, adopting the SOD version will lead to the fact that this tournament can be called anything, but it will not become a final, nor even a battle at all; "sandbox championship" is a more fitting description.

But we are not claiming to be the championship of the universe; we want an Open Sandbox Championship. And what to call it is a secondary matter. FB is the final game, its conclusion; this is where the players will show their current level, and we will draw some kind of intermediate conclusion.

...I suggest looking for compromises, for example, by trying to divide the templates/versions. For example, L+U and play less on SOD, HL on VT.

But then the tournament will be for three players (see the voting results). The words "only" appear in the first and second points.

And if we're serious...
There is experience in running tournaments on two versions. And it is quite sad. When players who do not want to compromise on this issue meet (and this was practically every time), there are withdrawals, grievances, or non-gaming victories. It is especially unpleasant when this happens closer to the final.
Therefore, I came to the conclusion that in the matter of versions, it is necessary to decide immediately in order not to upset the players.

Here's the thing: the final Tournaments – Baes, Portals, and ours – were originally conceived as competitions for the strongest players, like Wimbledon and Roland Garros. The top players were always the highlight of the tournament, at least from a gameplay perspective. Despite some individuals' attempts to limit participation based on location and "localism," this idea didn't work out. Therefore, I personally prefer to watch a prestigious tournament featuring the strongest players rather than a tournament for novice finalists (except perhaps for Gomunguls, all the others who voted for SOD more or less fit this description). On the other hand, those who vote for VT are often participants in the finals of the CIS tournaments of the last two years. In general, like many others, I would prefer a focus on the quality of the game. Now, "seriously." The logic of the message was as follows: since opinions are practically divided in half (is this news?), it would be great to try to find an option that satisfies both sides. Pit for LM, you apparently didn't understand the meaning of my suggestion. At least, such an option has never happened before – that's for sure. Let me try to explain: Based on my online experience with both versions, I have come to the conclusion that SOD is a concept that works well for small-sized maps, all sorts of skirmishes, balances, and frantic gameplay. On HL+U maps, VT is much more preferable. I see the main reasons as: 1. The absence of unnecessary objects and artifacts (when there are 2-3 Utopias on the map, getting all sorts of sea pendants in them is a dream for any true "SOD player"). 2. The ability to obtain the necessary spells in the magic tower by rebuilding. This eliminates situations where one player gets a scroll with DD, and the other is not even able to obtain transport spells. 3. The absence of necromancy, which essentially kills the spirit of the game on HL+U. The strategy in SOD often boils down to digging up 3-4 good necromancers who will chase after neutrals, then we intensively search for artifacts for necromancy, and in the end, we get a mega-interesting final battle of 3,000 skeletons against 3,500 skeletons. An additional example: in Europe, they usually play with a ban on necromancy. In Chaos League, one of the strongest communities known for its games on large maps, they quickly created a special patch that prohibits raising skeletons. The creators of VT followed the same path. Now, the essence of my suggestion is to pre-define the conditions so that maps of size L and M (if necessary) are played on the SOD version by default, and HL maps are played on the VT version. Moreover, it's no secret that ardent SOD players generally dislike large maps. At the same time, for some kind of mini-nostalgia, the version is not a major factor.

Oelm, I understood the meaning of your suggestion perfectly the first time. And I'm telling you for the second time – out of those who voted, only three stated that they were versatile. Even this:

...I'll add my vote to the WT players....

If people write – "I will play only on...", it means that your option is unacceptable for them.
I will not annul the voting results and come up with something new; the regulations are almost ready, and I will try to finish them today.

You are organizing the World Championship on WT, right? Try out your option there, and all the leading tournament organizers will get a new scheme for conducting tournaments and valuable experience.

On the other hand, those who voted for WT are participants in the finals of the CIS tournaments of the last two years. In general, I, like many others, would prefer the quality of the game.

I suggested holding an open RP tournament on Hive.

In general, it's strange to compare the skill of players on different versions. It's like comparing who plays better – Ovechkin or Arshavin?
And also, I think it's inappropriate to discuss the skill level of individual players on the forum and accuse people of being noobs.