Posts from One for all and all for one - 2

1) Free team formation, not based on tiers;

Yeah. And a handicap for the difference in the average team rating. Well, there could be extra restart days, the right to freely choose a color/template/castle, etc., so that players don't assemble a dream team...

Based on experience - 5 max, otherwise it will turn into chaos. And even better, 4 in the field + 1 reserve.

5 max - that's already too many, there are very few teams left.

3) crediting the result of each match, not based on a majority, i.e., the score is not 1:0, but 4:3, 5:2, 6:1, and even 7:0

4. Reducing the number of games in the group stage. Six teams playing each other twice – that’s too much, in my opinion. Either reduce the number of teams in the group if you want to play a double round-robin, or increase the number of teams in the group but play a single round-robin. Perhaps some other system could work. This needs to be considered, as much depends on the composition of the teams.

Message from Dirty_Player
I didn't like this point, because many vote not based on skill, but "by own rules," based on friendship. Situations arise where players who barely make it into the second basket by rating end up in the 1st basket. Naturally, such a team no longer contends for victory in any case, since the value of the captain as a 1st basket player is much higher than the actual captain's duties. An option here would be to choose N captains based on some criteria, and then draw lots among them for the order of selection.

Everyone remembers the situation with ColdRain and we wouldn't want a repeat of it, so either don't take them into the tournament or set stricter participation criteria (more games, placement in the rating table at the end of the season). The fate of the entire team depends on a no-name who might vanish without a trace.

Selection of players after the results of the basket distribution are finalized. I would like some time to familiarize myself with the composition of the baskets, and in case of inability to be present at the moment of player selection, leave a proxy or provide a list of priority players.

Reducing games in the group stage. After all, 6 teams, and double round-robin — that's overkill, IMHO. Either make fewer teams per group if there is a desire to play double round-robin, or more teams per group but single round-robin. Perhaps some other system. This needs thought; much depends on the composition.

5. Switching to a chess timer. I understand that this is a sore spot for you, but we still need to consider the opinion of the majority and follow fashion trends

Review the pool of templates, remove the least popular ones, add some new ones. Perhaps it's worth reviewing the selection system itself. But this is not as critical.

Message from Roger DAltavilla
I also have suggestions for improvement:
1) free team formation, rather than by baskets;
2) increasing the team size to 7(9) players;
3) counting the result of each match toward the score, not just by majority; meaning the score is not 1:0, but 4:3, 5:2, 6:1 and even 7:0
4) only the team captain communicates with the organizers; he also distributes players to numbers, monitors his team's deadlines, and files protests if necessary.

Nothing stops people from playing by agreement on same-side. Alternative is also good.

An alternative is when there is a choice, not when an opponent complains that they will only play with a SOD timer and spends 20 minutes per turn in battles. I suggest a mechanic similar to the League of Champions, where the red color chooses the type of timer – I think this is more than fair.

Thirdly, I absolutely disagree that the captain's duties don't contribute much to the team. Many people probably think so, but the one who worried the most about the tournament is the one who made it to the final, and for the second time in a row. Moreover, the winners turned out to be the most active captains both times. Last year, Vitaly turned his guys into real monsters; he worked with them online, guided them through the tournament, constantly paid attention to everything, asked about details, monitored everyone, and did much more. Look at his partners now - they are showing weak results.

Is this Kilgor, who has an undefeated streak in OFB and reached the semi-finals of the league, showing weak results? :eek:

I want to suggest that the organizers ban swaps! It's nonsense; teams are restructuring into stronger ones, and people are never against swapping.

I'm answering you specifically - that's how you voted, and a very small number of other players did too! By voting that way, you are creating chaos yourself. If you personally vote according to your conscience and encourage others to do the same, I think everything will be fine. Chaos can also be managed. That was the first point.

Thirdly, I absolutely disagree that the captain's duties don't contribute much to the team. Perhaps many people think so, but the one who worried the most about the tournament is the one who made it to the finals, and for the second time in a row, and the winners turned out to be the most active captains twice in a row. Last year, Vitaly turned his guys into real monsters; he worked with them online, guided them through the tournament, constantly paid attention to everything, asked about details, watched over everyone, and did much more. Look at his teammates now - they are showing weak results. The conclusion is - motivation! Now, Bishop was the most involved in this among all the participants in the entire tournament. I don't know all the nuances, but he communicated with me very actively. I think there is a connection here.

3.
You have 3 days to familiarize yourself.

4.
Games in the group must be played in 2 rounds so that teams can form a team. I agree that there are many games, but with the number of players who signed up, it seemed optimal to me. I am in favor of reducing the number of games in the group, but everything needs to be thought out and based on the number of participants.

I voted in a way that was beneficial to me, based on the tournament standings. The possibility of such voting is a flaw in the regulations.

There is a connection here. A weak captain (in terms of skill) will never turn a team into strong players. It's a nonsense when a second-basket player is stronger than the captain. Why are the 2nd and 3rd players to blame for getting a weak captain and losing all their games? Homungulus and Bishop did a good job as captains because they are good players and have something to teach less experienced fighters. Why Kalababa didn't make monsters out of the Shtrafbat team is unclear :D

is not true. Immediately after the announcement of the voting for captains and basket compositions, the voting began (or an hour later; I was asleep at the time). If I am lucky and become a captain, I will want to familiarize myself with who I can choose from the 2nd and 3rd baskets. I ask to be given at least a day for this.

And there should also be 4 groups, so there aren't situations with lucky losers from 3rd place and so on. In general, of course, everything depends on the number of participants; it's too early to say anything now.

The issue isn't about discussing the timer; it's quite obvious that having a timer in reserve that burns down, a normal player will check 30 times if everything is in place, while a slow-witted Новичок or just slowpokes (there are plenty of those) will sit and think during the free time in battle, or pour tea and go to the bathroom... definitely, a chess timer saves overall time and is optimal. I see absolutely no advantages for playing to win with a SoD timer; you mention them but provide no arguments—the advantages turn out to be quite mythical... while there are plenty of downsides. I think 80% of the forum can confirm my words, and I am merely proposing a truly equal alternative: there are 2 players, so let both players in their red color decide which timer to play on!
p.s. as for punishing such "slow-wits," that's foolish; by nature, some people just aren't able to move quickly, or haven't learned yet. Let the timer punish them. Depriving them of a game in the tournament won't teach them much of a lesson, but a missed turn certainly will, since someone else's opinion and a technical rule are perceived completely differently.