Auto-translated
I'm rooting for a draw between Gomunguls and Maretti. Aya, you're the champion!!! :)
Vatya
Posts from The Final Battle 7
Vatya
KobRa_RR
Auto-translated
3 substitutions in such a final is a FARCE. It would have been possible to track this in advance and replace the players with those who deserved to be in the final no less than others (scored the same number of points in the OFB) and who could also perform well within the allotted time!
NL 2orgam, of course.
NL 2orgam, of course.
Volodymyr
Auto-translated
Ok. Let's imagine a situation where you're playing in a tournament and contending for the win. Alex the Great signed up and beat you in the first round, then withdrew. Why on earth should the remaining 8 participants get free wins against a strong player whom they could lose to? Is that fair? That's exactly why the 50% games threshold was introduced.
If a person has played at least 1 game, they have already started in the tournament, you can't turn a blind eye to it and say it never happened.
And now let's imagine that I beat Alex, and then he withdrew. Maybe that was the best game of my life, and some "uncertain rule" is stealing that achievement from me. The rule "protects" the interests of the losers from the fact that a person might beat them and then withdraw. It's more fair to "protect" the interests of those who won, I think.
Aiwe
Auto-translated
I think the problem is that after a certain number of rounds, people lose their chance to win. This is a drawback of the round-robin system; the same thing happened in OFB, but there, no one cared. It would be good to agree with the players in advance or motivate them to play all the games, at least in such an important tournament.
Dark
Auto-translated
motivation is playing against strong opponents.
if it doesn't suit you, don't participate in the offline battles so you don't end up in the final stage.
if it doesn't suit you, don't participate in the offline battles so you don't end up in the final stage.
лето 2012.
Roger DAltavilla
Auto-translated
I think the problem is that after a certain round, people lose their chance of winning. This is a drawback of the round-robin system; the same thing happened in OFB, but nobody cared.
Воздам сторицей!
Wicc
Auto-translated
Please name a system where players don't lose their chance to win after a "certain round." By the way, OFB was conducted using the Swiss system.
Roger DAltavilla
Auto-translated
That's why I hold all my tournaments in a "double elimination with a floating bracket" format – there are more games than in an Olympic-style tournament, and all active participants retain a chance of winning.
Воздам сторицей!
Aiwe
Auto-translated
Please name a system where players don't lose their chance to win after a "certain round." By the way, OFB was conducted using the Swiss system.
What is meant is that they should play, even if they are losing, so as not to spoil the results for others. I'm not right about OFB; everything is fine with that, but in the group stage, you can simply replace someone.
P.S. Double elimination is closest to what I'm looking for.
Wicc
Auto-translated
A double-elimination bracket with a floating grid is essentially a Swiss-system tournament with elimination after a certain number of losses. Of course, all remaining players still have a chance to win :) because those who have no chance of winning are eliminated.
In an Olympic-style tournament, the factor of chance is simply higher – a strong player can accidentally lose to a weaker player or meet another strong player early on.
But in the format mentioned, the probability of this is significantly lower, and at the same time, the number of rounds, due to the optimized bracket, is usually less than in a full double-elimination tournament – saving time.
Dirty_Player
Auto-translated
It's not possible to hold all tournaments in the same format, and there isn't an ideal format either; every format has its drawbacks.
Aiwe
Auto-translated
It's not possible to hold all tournaments in the same format, and there isn't an ideal format either; every format has its drawbacks.
The point is that if a round-robin format was chosen for such an important tournament, then people need to be motivated to play all the matches.
This system is good imo. Players just have to show some respect to the other players when they join.
Wicc
Auto-translated
To provide motivation to finish even after a poor start, there should be something at stake depending on the final placement.
For example:
1-3 = qualification for the next FB (Faction Battle)
4-7 = qualification for the second stage of the qualifier for the FV (Faction Versus)
Players who do not finish the tournament are not allowed to participate in the next qualifier for the FB.
For example:
1-3 = qualification for the next FB (Faction Battle)
4-7 = qualification for the second stage of the qualifier for the FV (Faction Versus)
Players who do not finish the tournament are not allowed to participate in the next qualifier for the FB.
Auto-translated
For OFB, the Swiss system is excellent. It's the best system for weeding out players (rather than determining winners) from a group of ten. Moreover, you can still compete calmly after two losses. And if you're lucky, even after three. The fact that people withdraw from the competition themselves further reduces the randomness of the final result. However, for some reason, in the last OFB, there weren't the usual two extra rounds. And now, a cause-and-effect relationship has emerged.
