Posts from Tournament bracket idea.

When participating in various tournaments, players often face the problem that their opponent is either unavailable, has not yet "emerged" from the previous stage, or is a guaranteed "loser/winner."
Thus, even if someone is "keen on the tournament," they either have to play just for fun or participate in a couple more.
It is clear that the outcome of the tournament will be the determination of a champion, but, especially in the early rounds, many participants register not for the sake of winning – at a minimum, a quorum is needed, and the principle of "even if I lose, I will participate" applies.
And if it is not particularly important for the "participant" how many and whom to wait for, then for a player aiming for the final, it seems difficult to just play meaningless matches and wait for an unclear outcome (especially if it is a vacation or something similar).

So, here is the idea:

1. Everyone, just like in the seasonal ranking, is assigned a certain number of points, say 1000. Thus, the titles "Champion of the CIS" or "10 games a year" become equal.
2. Each player chooses their opponent – some will manage to play three games a day, while others will play one a week. Everyone decides for themselves. Each victory takes away half of the loser's points.
3. If the number of points becomes less than 250 (3 losses in a row) – the player is eliminated.
Upon reaching 2500 – the player moves to the next bracket. Thus, someone will "deal with" 3 of the weakest players (at their discretion) and receive 1000+500+500+500, someone will receive 1000+1000+500, and it may turn out that a game of 1500/2000 will result in final scores of 2500/1000 or 750/2750. However it turns out, each player will develop their own strategy and will have the opportunity to play the tournament at a time that is convenient for them with any available opponent.
4. Players from the second bracket play in the same way among themselves. Those who lose go down to the previous bracket, and the winners gradually score 5000 to advance to the third round. Players from different brackets cannot play each other.
5. Naturally, there will be deadlines for the rounds, and those who could not advance to the second, or "dropped out" of it on the last day, will be eliminated from the tournament. Moreover, the deadlines will not be calendar-based, but dictated by the most active players – for example, as soon as 4 players advance to the third round, there will be 2 days left until the end of the first round.
6. Accordingly, the 2nd, 3rd, and subsequent rounds will be eliminated. Until 3-4 players remain, who will compete for the cup.

As a result, those who do not want to or cannot play will not affect those who want to and can. And it is they who will dictate the pace of the tournament, and not, as in school: "Children, we will not move on until Vovochka understands..."

Perhaps the idea is not new or has some insurmountable difficulties. Therefore, I propose it for general discussion.

Why is the poll closed? As for the topic, it reminds me of a crusade + a seasonal event, but in principle, if a proper regulation is established and a tournament is organized, I would sign up.

Why is the poll private?

Hmm... This is my first time creating a poll – what should I change or how should I improve it?

The idea is interesting; I've been thinking about something similar – a tournament ladder, where players start with the same rating, play for a certain period (e.g., a month), and then the top N players advance to the next round.

Hmm... This is my first time creating a poll – what should I change or how should I do it?

You can’t change the poll now, unless the moderators fix it. When creating a thread, make sure to uncheck the box that, by default, makes the poll closed, and instead select the option for an open poll.

How is this better than a tournament with a dynamic bracket? The only advantage is that a dynamic bracket is easier to calculate.
Also, the downside is that some people work, and some don't; some people can play from work, and some can't. As a result, those with more free time for games get a huge advantage. Plus, "average" players can easily exploit "newbies" and advance, while the "pros" will naturally play against each other because they're not interested in playing against players who are significantly weaker.
In the end, we have:
Disadvantages:
- Those who can play almost any time of day have a huge advantage.
- Exploitation of "newbies" is possible.
- The tournament's timeframe also introduces uncertainty. Judging by this regulation, specific deadlines should be set, like 6 months, and after 6 months, a "final four" should be held.
Advantages:
- Everyone won't have to wait for one or two people.
- The ability to choose an opponent "to their liking".
Conclusion: the idea is sound, but there are certain drawbacks.

What makes this better than a tournament with a dynamic bracket? The only thing is, a dynamic bracket tournament is less of a hassle to calculate. And the downside is that some people work, some don't; some people can play from work, some can't. As a result, those with more free time to play get a huge advantage. Plus, "average" players can easily exploit "newbies" and thus advance, while the "pros" will naturally play against each other because they're not interested in playing against players who are significantly weaker. In the end, what do we have: Disadvantages: - Those who can play almost any time of day get a huge advantage. - Exploitation of "newbies" is possible. - The tournament timeframe also introduces uncertainty. Judging by this format, specific deadlines should be set, like 6 months, and after 6 months, a "final four" should be held. Advantages: - Everyone won't have to wait for one or two people. - The ability to choose an opponent "to their liking." Conclusion: The idea is sound, but there are some drawbacks.

Well, let me try to argue: - I agree that the "quality" of the game is least related to the number of games played and, rather, increases with the number of games, making it a more indicative measure. That is, a weak but capable player who plays non-stop will play 10 games and remain "where they are," while a strong player will score their points in two or three matches and move forward. It should be understood that each game can either "add" or "subtract." Look at the Player Rating - the picture is indicative when a player with 10 games is significantly higher than a player with 50... - "Exploitation of newbies" already exists in tournaments. For example, I might be matched against Javdet, and I can't refuse the game. If he doesn't lose, I'll likely "go" to the lower bracket with a 90% probability. And there, I might randomly get matched against a loser from the "The vs Twaryna" pair. And the most important thing here is not that I lost (learn to play, and then try), but that someone "got a free pass" past me. In the "scheme" I proposed, a weak player can simply refuse to play, waiting for a more "suitable" player. Thus, the "blindness" of the draw is compensated by the "diplomacy" of the players. And we are all a community, and if in the old "schemes" a strong player, after defeating three obvious newbies, at most causes a surge of "what a freeloader you are," implying that he didn't contribute, then in the proposed version, there will be phrases like "what a sly fox you are," clearly not out of envy, but rather out of reproach. - The timeframe introduces variety: - There will be no delays. - Constant monitoring of the game situation. - No need to withdraw from the tournament or find replacements. - All sorts of coalitions are possible, such as "he's getting too far ahead, let's take a bite out of his 2000" or "I need to get moving, Fedya, Senya, and Yegor have already moved on." - More "close" communication between players - as soon as even a newbie reaches 2000, they will receive more offers to play. - I'm sure that communication within the tournament will become noticeably more lively. The problem with the difficulty of calculating the scores is solvable. The only question that arises is with the "make-up" games: If the scores are calculated based on the result of the game, a situation may arise where a player played hoping to earn 1000, but in reality, they will only get 250 because the opponent has already lost to someone else. Or the option of "deducting" points as if into a "game fund": 1vs2 2000/1000 1vs3 1000/1000 1vs4 500/1000 Personally, the first option seems simpler and more interesting to me.