Posts from FAQ. P.S.

So, the OFB tournament has ended, and it turned out to be very controversial: there were both positive and sharply negative reviews. This tournament had three problematic factors:
1) Swiss system
2) Strict deadlines, and as a result, awarding unfinished matches.
3) Surprises in each round in the form of templates and rules.

My opinion on each of them.
1) The Swiss system is generally a bad system for Heroes, but it is optimally suited for situations where it is necessary to determine not a specific winner, but several places. All other systems are less objective in this regard.
2) Strict deadlines were maintained for two reasons: all results are needed for the draw of the new round, and we did not want to drag out the qualifying tournament, because even in a short time it lasted 4.5 months. Awarding matches is a very negative moment, but again, there was no other way. Extending the round was impossible for the reasons mentioned above, and if participants need 2 weeks for a round, then a few extra days would hardly help. But if something needs to be changed here, then it should be changed to a more drawn-out system.
3) Well, I think this is the factor that distinguishes this tournament from all others. In general, the name of the OFB tournament stands for (the first interpretation) Selection for the Best Final. If the word Best is used, then it means that those who make it to the final must play on all templates and according to any rules.

This is my personal opinion, I want to know the opinion of the participants and viewers. As well as wishes for the next tournaments of this format. A poll has been added to the topic, vote. (you can choose several options).

first

1) Swiss system: a good system. 2) Strict deadlines: the tournament should proceed this way. 3) But I'm ready to argue about the templates! The "like-based" system has passed, and those who were luckier with the distribution won. This experimental template system left really strong players out. It was fun, but far from objective! This approach to templates is not suitable for OFB.

1) The Swiss system should not be used in Competitive events where the criterion for determining the winner is FAIRNESS. We could debate this for a long time...

In my opinion, the only suitable case for it is when there is an extremely large number of participants (more than 128) and a short timeframe (less than 2 weeks). If at least one of these conditions is not met, the system will have drawbacks, although it will always have inherent drawbacks. IMHO.

2) Strict deadlines represent a transition to a new level of judging and execution. They are necessary as an integral part of the rules. It is much better when everyone knows when, under what circumstances, and what will happen.

3) The new feature of surprises in each level is very interesting and adds a unique element that I personally liked. However, it is not suitable for OFB and FB tournaments. There should be a stable set of templates that are classic for the game. I will not judge what constitutes a classic, but it's like SMK, 8mm6a, and other 3 templates on which games are most often played.

Instead of just a random template for each round, you could also increase the size. For example: Round 1 - m200, so 3 templates for Black Knight. Round 2 - L-U, with its own templates. Round 3 - L+U, with templates. Round 4 - Jebus (even though it's overused, you still need some skill to clear half the map in a week). Round 5 - HL+U with templates. P.S. And an idea that probably won't be supported: Round 0, Team Kill 3, best of three.

1) I have nothing against the Swiss system;
2) Strict deadlines are fine. This is a serious tournament, and it should be a priority for those participating;
3) I didn't like the anarchic template very much, especially since it was decisive in the 6th round. I'm against using anarchy in such a serious tournament. And even more so, I think it's a mistake to ruin the most playable template – 8mm6a – with anarchy.

I liked the Swiss system. The timing is good, as it should be. But you overdid it with the templates; there were too many surprises, in my opinion. Apparently, because I can't play all the templates yet, I spent half the tournament just fulfilling my obligation, and therefore didn't get much enjoyment from the game. If I had known in advance that this would happen, I wouldn't have signed up.

If the word "Best" is used, it means that those who make it to the final must play on all templates and according to any rules.

I agree with you on this point, but a huge number of people participate in the selection, and there aren't that many real contenders to make it to the final in this mass, and they are all well-known. The rest mainly participate to improve their skills by playing against these contenders, so I vote for stability (for this tournament), and this system (being able to play everything) would probably be a good fit for the Facebook tournament, since that's where the best of the best are actually determined.

The Swiss system is good, and strict rules are very good. I didn't like the templates. I didn't like them primarily because of the strange rules that no one has ever played or will play again. This increased the variance in the game, which already has enough of it. And in a tournament where the main goal is to determine the strongest players. And it's also annoying and frustrating. Personally, for me. I won't participate in tournaments in this format anymore.

I voted for the idea that the OFB system should constantly change because it really shakes up the tournament, but Dirty still overdid it. Or, if you knew that your imagination would run wild, you could have warned everyone in advance – outlined in general terms what might happen, such as 8mm6a according to anarchy rules and Spider at 200% – that would have reduced the number of participants and the number of disputes.
But overall, the tournament didn't cause me any negative emotions personally, as I played for fun. If I had been competing for a place in the OFB, there would have been reasons for disappointment (as with many here).
Regarding the strict deadlines – that's a huge plus! This is exactly how it should always be done. It's unpleasant, but what can you do?
And the Swiss system – it's a matter of taste; I personally am not a fan of this system, but it is quite suitable for the OFB, where you need to select 5-10 people.

Next time, I would also like to see a few surprises, but without going too far. ;)

1) Swiss system - no questions. 2) Strict deadlines, and as a result, awarding of unfinished matches - absolutely great. 3) Surprises in each round in the form of templates and rules - it's difficult to make judgmental conclusions given the fact of winning the qualifying round. The tournament went by in one breath, as they say, I was on a roll. Perhaps the generator compensated for many previous unsuccessful scenarios, or perhaps I learned to use restarts. I have no complaints about any of the templates; it was interesting to see something new in each round (throw stones at me:)), although it might not be entirely suitable for the qualifying round.

In my opinion, for the templates, it would have been better to simply announce from the start which template would be used in which round. So people would know what they're getting into and wouldn't complain during the process.

Experiments like 200% or bespredel are fun, but within the OFB they cause too much negativity.

From the perspective of quorum, minimizing whining, and achieving an adequate result, you could have done something like this sequence: SMKA, Jebus Cross, Mini-Nosta, Diamond, and 3 XL+U at the end.

From the standpoint of quorum, minimizing whining, and achieving an adequate result, the sequence could have been roughly as follows: Smka, Jebus Cross, mini-Nosta, Diamond, and 3 XL+U at the end.

On two of which the soda-guzzlers would have bickered due to an abundance of one-sided games)))

1) The Swiss system should not be used in competitions where the criterion for determining the winner is FAIRNESS. We can discuss this for a long time...

So, you think that FIDE uses an unfair system in chess tournaments at all levels?

In my opinion, they should have simply stated from the beginning which template would be used in each round. So that people would know what to expect and not complain during the process.

I've already been convinced of this, and I even agree. It's interesting to know if it's really possible to find templates that would satisfy all participants. I don't think so. Maybe next time we should choose the templates by voting and distribute them randomly?

I admit that I went too far with the 200%, the chaos, and the all-random approach, but I still think that this system is very good for selection.

It is necessary to collect statistics from seasonal games to see which map templates players prefer.

We need to collect statistics from seasonal games to see which templates players prefer.

Yeah, and it would be best to use data from 2008.