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.
This condition about 50% of games in round-robin tournaments should be known. We can discuss whether it's fair or not, and provide many examples, both for and against.
That's a strange rule. If a person has played 1 game, they can no longer be considered a DNS (Did Not Start). If it's not too much trouble, could you provide at least one example of someone who would be treated unfairly if everyone was given the win?
It’s a pity, the ending was supposed to be very interesting.
"Это нам идеально подходит!" [Новосибирск, 2013] "Красавчик! Если только не читер.." [Киев, 2014] "Это Вам не шутки - нажрался Dust в маршрутке" [Новокузнецк, 2015] Сам ты фиш (с) :D
The initial idea of distributing castles is great.
But in reality, the tournament fell apart because some players played more, others less, and in the end, there were only two contenders.
I don't see any tragedy here.
Those who started losing gradually lost interest in the tournament – some sooner, some later; the penalty for being late was more or less adequate, although it would be better to prescribe these measures in advance, before the tournament, and, in addition, they could be made even stricter.
The tournament itself and the battle for first place have already taken place.
The decisive match is ahead.
If someone is being punished, and as a result, people who won against a less active opponent are suffering – there's no need to even think or reason further; it's intuitively clear that this action is wrong/unfair. A person spent their time, energy, and health, and they're told, "Sorry, that didn't happen?" :smile38:
Perhaps assigning blame to those who didn't play would be unfair to those who lost to Britvachka. So, if you have to choose between two evils (zero points for wins or a point for an unplayed match), assigning blame would clearly be the lesser evil.
Since intermediate deadlines have been set, it would have been correct to create a schedule for each period. That is, Player 1 in the first period should play against Players 5, 7, and 9. In the second period, against Players 2, 3, and 6, and so on. After each period, summarize the results and assign blame.
And if you look even further, the 50% rule is not applicable with intermediate deadlines. If it is applied, it should be applied to the entire duration, specifically to all 9 games. Currently, Britvachka has 3 games, which equals 50% of what is needed. Perhaps, if he were not artificially prevented from playing, he would have managed to play his 50% within the deadline, and those who managed to win against him would not have suffered.
I understand that "who are you to say goodbye," and the decision has already been made, but I sincerely hope that Kostya will reconsider it. At the very least, it might be worth reconsidering the approach in future tournaments. Oldboy
I don't see any tragedy in this.
You should think about it more carefully. Oldboy
The punishment for those who were late is more or less adequate.
Yes, for those who were late, but what is the fault of Ayauhteotl and Scorpiona?
can we still clarify – what is the specific difference in the final results of the tournament for Ayya and Scorpion in the case of one decision or another?
I understand that, according to the adopted decision, Ayya will definitely take 2nd place, and Scorpion, if she wins against LeBron, will take 5th place (overtaking "the creature"), and if she doesn't win, she will take 7th place (LeBron will overtake her).
But if we adopt your option, Volodymyr (by the way, what is a short way to call him?), what will their results be? I want to clearly understand – how much they suffer from the adopted "unfair" decision.
Can you still formulate – what is the specific difference in the final results of the tournament for Aya and Scorpion in the case of one or the other decision?
The tournament table is in the second post of the topic. I think you'll figure it out :)
There is an opinion that it is correct to schedule the match between Maretti and Britvotchka, as this game affects the distribution of the top places.
The tournament table is in the second post of the thread. I think you'll figure it out. :)
There's an opinion that it would be right to schedule the match between Maretti and Britvotchka, as this game affects the distribution of the top places.
But it seems to me that I've already figured it out, and you haven't. Be specific - what, who, and in what way does it affect?
In my opinion, the rules should be discussed before the tournament begins, not during it.
Since all participants have agreed to participate in the tournament, it means that the tournament rules are acceptable to them.
The rules are not needed for fairness, but for a clear and understandable resolution of controversial situations.
Yes, sometimes the outcome of a sporting competition may be unfair; this is a common feature of all sports, and Heroes is no exception.
However, in this case, determining the winner of the tournament with the match between Маретти vs Гомункулс will be a perfectly fair final. And how the remaining places are distributed is not so important.
Burger is suffering. What's not clear? They won against Britvochka, and Gomunguls lost.
What's unclear is this:
Aya, whether she does this or that, takes 2nd place. Scorpio, whether she does this or that, takes 5th place if she wins against LeBron, and 7th place if she loses. I might be wrong about Scorpio, but I don't see the mistake yet. I calculated, I calculated - this Burger doesn't affect anything because of Britvochka's 1 point. That's why I'm asking - please write specifically what you're talking about? I don't understand.
The only person who will actually suffer is Maretti, because if he had a chance (and could) win against Britvochka, he wouldn't have fallen below 2nd place. But even that - what difference does it make? There's only one cup - for 1st place, whether it's 2nd or 3rd - the reward is the same - admission to the next FB. The top three are unattainable, whether this or that.
Aiya, whether this or that, takes 2nd place. Scorpiona, whether this or that, takes 5th place if she wins against LeBron, and 7th place if she loses. I might be wrong about Scorpiona, but I don't see the mistake yet. I calculated, calculated - this Berger, because of 1 point, doesn't affect anything. That's why I'm asking - please write specifically what you're talking about? I don't understand.
The only person who will actually suffer is Maretti, because if he had a chance (and could) win against Britva, he wouldn't drop below 2nd place.
I agree, I was a bit hasty :) Aiya and Scorpiona only suffer morally, but Maretti, yes, that's correct. The essence doesn't change, in this situation it didn't have an impact, but the approach is questionable and should be reconsidered.
I suggest referring to Wikipedia to understand what round-robin tournaments are.
The system is resistant to player dropouts: if someone drops out of the tournament after it has started, you simply cross them off the tournament table and void the results of the games they have already played; the result is as if they never participated. In other systems, in such cases, some players have to be awarded technical victories. However, voiding game results puts participants in unequal conditions: those who defeated the dropped player lose points, while those who lost to them lose nothing, and in some cases may even improve their tiebreakers. Alternatively, you can award technical victories in the remaining matches of the dropped participant, but then those who haven't faced them yet gain an advantage. Therefore, a more complex dropout algorithm is often used: if the dropped participant has played half or more of their games, their remaining opponents are awarded a technical victory; otherwise, their game results are voided.
This is exactly the scheme used for chess and other sports competitions, and the same rule applies at HeroesWorld. In any case, there will be those who are disadvantaged — nothing can be done about it — but as Wicc correctly noted:Wicc
Regulations are needed not for fairness, but for a clear and understandable resolution of contentious situations.
Volodymyr
If it's not too much trouble, at least 1 example, regarding who it would be unfair to if everyone is given tech wins?
OK. Let's imagine a situation where you are playing in a tournament and competing for victory. Alex the Great signed up and beat you in the first round, then dropped out. Why on earth should the remaining 8 participants receive free wins over a strong player whom they might have lost to? Is that fair? This is precisely why the 50% games threshold was introduced. =Stinger=
The idea of the initial castle distribution is great. But essentially, the tournament fell apart because some played more, some played less, and as a result, there were only two contenders.
What can you do, but this is a drawback of round-robin tournaments — loss of interest due to a few participants pulling ahead — but in my opinion, it's not that bad. Maretti
Using Bergers over personal meetings is a strange rule aswell. Never seen that before.
Volodymyr
