OFB-8 — Tournament History online

No ratings yet — be the first to rate!

Announcement

злой_романтик

12 years ago

Auto-translated

The time has come and so... drumroll... the qualifying tournament for FB-8 is declared open :smile44:

I. Regulations and Deadlines

The qualifying tournament will be held using the "Swiss" system

Start of the tournament: April 1, 2014; registration until March 29, 2014 inclusive

Time limit per round: 2 weeks - technical losses will be assigned without regard to opinions or authority (the sole exception is CIS-14 in Minsk)
Players have the right to arrange a convenient time among themselves, but if an agreement cannot be reached, the critical time for playing is the night from Saturday to Sunday of the first week. (if the game was not completed in one session, then during the second week). In case one player fails to show up at the set time, the other must write to the organizer or one of the judges, and when the tech result is assigned, this will be the main argument.
This clause is not subject to discussion.

7 players advance to the final stage.

II. Rules and Templates.

1. By default, games are played according to /topic/10593/
2. By default, the game version is SoD 3.2 (4.0); by mutual agreement, WT or any other version of HOMM3.

3.The template for each round will be determined as follows - during registration, each participant must indicate 5 favorite templates; from all these templates, 9 will be selected (depending on the number of participants and the number of rounds, respectively). Then the selected templates are randomly "shuffled" and a list is compiled (e.g., 1-2sm4d3, 2-mininoszta, 3-Jebus Cross, 4-skirmish, etc.). In the 1st round, players ban templates that "came up" under numbers 1, 2, 3 (i.e., banning occurs from 2sm4d3, mininoszta, and Jebus Cross). In the next round, banning occurs from templates 2, 3, 4 (mininoszta, Jebus Cross, skirmish), etc. In the last 7th (9th) round, banning will occur from templates 7 (9), 1, 2. Red starts the ban

4. Town selection: standard ban. Blue starts the ban. Colors are determined during the draw and do not change with restarts.

A win awards 1 point, a draw 0.5, a loss 0.
The winners, and accordingly those who qualify for FB, will be 7 people.
The winner is determined by the total number of points scored. In case of a tie in points, additional tiebreakers apply.
1) Buchholz Coefficient
2) Head-to-head result

III. Organizational Matters
1. The tournament is official and regular.
2. The tournament is conducted according to the Rules for Organizing, Conducting, and Participating in Tournaments.
3. Tournament Host: zloi_romantic (296524052)
Tournament Judges: Pit for LM (471401475), Dirty_Player (ICQ 408722873).
4. For each game played, participants must submit a report and confirmation.
5. Saves of all games must be kept until the end of the tournament and presented at the first request of the tournament hosts or any AC member.
6. Regarding controversial issues, if any arise, please discuss them outside the forum. To resolve them, contact the host or a tournament judge via ICQ and provide daily saves, ICQ logs, and other necessary information.
The judges' decision is made primarily based on the tournament rules. If the situation that arises is not regulated by the rules, then the judges will be guided by basic logic and gaming ethics.
7. All tournament games count towards the season rating. Reports and confirmations are written in this thread and will be copied to the "Game Reports and Confirmations Online" thread. I.e., there is NO need to duplicate reports in the seasonal thread.
8. The final part of the tournament will be held using a round-robin system.

IV. Participants
1. Experienced players from HW and other gaming resources are invited to the tournament.
2. Newcomers who have shown good results are allowed (applications will be considered on an individual basis).
3. Newly registered players are not allowed to participate in the tournament (exception: active players from other gaming resources; applications will be considered on an individual basis).
4. Players who have a BWP are not eligible to participate in the tournament. If any player is awarded a BWP during the tournament, they will be disqualified and their results annulled.
5. Applications from undisciplined players who have repeatedly "ditched" tournaments may be rejected.
6. The organizers reserve the right to refuse a user participation in the tournament without publicly explaining the reasons.
7. The Winner and 2nd-3rd place finishers of the FB-7 tournament are NOT allowed to participate in the qualifiers.
8. The tournament application must include:
- 5 most favorite templates
- convenient time for playing
9. Players Gomunguls, Aya, Maretti advance to FB-8 without a qualifier, while players Piterius and LeBron have a bonus of a byeslot for 1 round (if, of course, they wish to participate)

The randomizer arranged the templates as follows
1-2sm4d3
2-Spider
3-skirmish (played according to OFB rules, i.e., with a town ban and no color change, but by mutual agreement you can play according to seasonal rules, i.e., allrandom)
4-6lm10a
5-JC
6-8mm6a
7-anarchy
8-diamond
9-Mini nostalgia

Thus, in the 1st round Red starts the ban from templates - 2sm4d3, Spider, skirmish
In the 2nd round, the ban proceeds from templates Spider, skirmish, 6lm10a
In all rounds, Red starts the template ban

I repeat for everyone - if you have a problem with your opponent (cannot find a common time, being ignored, etc.), write to me on ICQ - we will sort it out
Draw

In reply to Dima Surmay

Roger DAltavilla

11 years ago

Auto-translated

Dima Surmay

Why should a game that was played in the OFB be continued in the FB?

According to the decision of the AK.

Dima Surmay

If this isn't an invention of the AK, where is it written? (in my opinion, even if Rebellios is somewhat wrong, it still shouldn't be like this)

It is impossible to describe all controversial cases in one document. In its decisions, the AK is guided by the rules, common sense, and the benefit to the forum.

Added 1 minute ago

Dagr

From the very beginning, they should have appointed worthy participants for the FB. Maybe then, there would have been nothing to judge...

Don't think in stereotypes. For some reason, some are sure that if a game doesn't end on time, it automatically ends in a draw. In this case, that is not true.

In reply to Dima Surmay

KobRa_RR

11 years ago

Auto-translated

Dima Surmay

Why should a game that was played in the OFB be continued in the FB?
If this isn't an AK invention, where is it written? (In my opinion, even if Rebellious is somewhat wrong, it still shouldn't be like this.)

Once again (hopefully for the last time), it's only because you're Dima Surmay, by the way, send me a message on ICQ)): How else can you influence a player who doesn't want to finish a lost game in any way and is trying to cheat to get a technical win? If I were in AK, it would be an easy technical defeat for such a player. Still don't believe it? Then in my next post, I'll post the logs; I'm tired of this :(
But AK, instead, takes him into the FB and gives him a second chance...

P.S. I can give many examples where unfinished games are completed, for example, in Brain Ring (an unplayed point is carried over to the next round, where two points are played, and the question is not removed and is asked later), and here, FB is a direct continuation of the OFB tournament. (You can guess from the name :D)

In reply to KobRa_RR

Dark

11 years ago

Auto-translated

ready to play instead of Rebellious in OFB :D
he's giving me his slot :smile02:

In reply to Roger DAltavilla

Stizko

11 years ago

Auto-translated

Roger DAltavilla

According to the Arbitration Committee (AK):
It is impossible to describe all controversial cases in one document. The AK, in its decisions, is guided by the rules, common sense, and the benefit to the forum.

I don't understand where the common sense is when players reveal save files, and the AK awards a draw? (At the very least, the player who initiated it should receive a technical loss). Or at least force them to finish the game, as they both saw the map in equal conditions... I believe that this is common sense and beneficial for the forum.

In reply to Niemand

Pit for LM

11 years ago

Auto-translated

Dagr

I presented a picture – the result of a qualifying match in the Euro 2016 football championship was counted towards the final stage of the championship. Funny, though.

Let me remind you about our tournament fb-6, where we chose to combine offline and online formats:

Stage 3. FB, round-robin tournament with 6 best players.
At this stage, the results of matches between these players from the second stage are taken into account.

Wasn't it funny then?
We try to run the FB tournament in different ways, without using standard schemes, so I don’t see any reason prohibiting us from finishing the crucial game.

The decision regarding this game was made collectively: based on the requirements of the tournament (all deadlines for players have already passed; a mutual technical defeat could be calmly assigned), based on the tournament standings of the participants (both were contenders, and the result was important for both), as well as based on the dynamics of the game development according to the save files (we analyzed the situation twice; the first time, a replay was awarded; there wasn't enough time for a second extension, so a conditional draw was assigned, and a replay was scheduled for the next stage of the tournament).

Since the game has not been finished, discussing it on the forum is unacceptable. Therefore, neither the judge nor the players have the right to present here any facts obtained from the save files.

The situation is complex both in the tournament and in the game. The game is the best judge; let it decide.

In reply to Pit for LM

Wicc

11 years ago

Auto-translated

Pit for LM

Let me remind you of our fb-6 tournament, in which we chose the option of combining OFB and FB:

Wasn't it funny back then?

Back then, this was announced in advance, and players knew what they were participating in. Now, there has been a gross change in the rules that was not agreed upon with the participants.

The organizers have the right to award any result to a match. They also have the right to expand FB (although it is better to warn in advance). However, crediting a match from one tournament to another is a gross violation of both the spirit and the letter of the rules.

In Rebel's place, I would simply refuse to participate in such a tournament.

In Cobra's place, I would play a new FB match with Rebel instead of finishing this one.

AK and Pit should keep their fingers crossed; lately, there has been too much arrogance, and that doesn't lead to anything good.

In reply to Sanin

Roger-ua

11 years ago

Auto-translated

Sanin

Rebellius's arguments are logical. I'm with him.

I fully agree. In any round of the OFB, were there matches between contenders for qualifying that should have been played to the end? There are deadlines for the round; after they expire, either a technical loss is declared, or a win is awarded!
The option of replaying the matches and crediting the results in the final OFB, without warning about this option before the start of the game, doesn't hold up to any criticism.
It's strange that, based on my experience, the calm and objective Pit supports such a strange (to put it mildly) decision.
When I started, there wasn't a message from Wissa yet, who described the situation even more convincingly.

In reply to Wicc

Niemand

11 years ago

Auto-translated

Pit for LM

I'll remind you of our Tournaments fb-6, in which we chose the option of combining ofb and fb:

Stage 3. FB, round-robin tournament of the 6 best players.
At this stage, match results between these players from the second stage are taken into account.

Was it not funny then?
Back then ~~I didn't give a damn~~ it was not funny.

And that's if we're talking about combining OFB and FB. Maybe now we should just see this through to the end - make one tournament in two rounds: 1) qualification; 2) fb.
Well, it's just a suggestion for the future...

In reply to Niemand

Roger DAltavilla

11 years ago

Auto-translated

Dagr

Back then ~~I didn't give a damn~~ it wasn't funny.

And that's if the conversation turned to combining OFB and FB. Maybe it's time to see this through to the end - make one tournament in two rounds: 1) qualifiers; 2) fb.
Well, just a suggestion for the future...

For such a large number of participants as in OFB, only 2 systems exist: Olympic and Swiss, both with their own drawbacks.

In reply to Roger DAltavilla

Iamsamstan

11 years ago

Auto-translated

IMHO, it would have been much simpler not to include either of them in the Facebook group, and then there would have been no arguments, no logs, and none of this mess.

In reply to Wicc

Dark

11 years ago

Auto-translated

Wicc

Expanding the faction limit is also an option (although it's better to warn in advance).

Wow, "better to warn in advance!" From my own experience, I can say that if I had known about 9 players, I would have played the game completely differently! In my opinion, this change is the most significant:smile14:

In reply to Dark

Wicc

11 years ago

Auto-translated

darkello

Wow, "better to plan ahead!" Based on my own experience, I can say that if I had known about the 9-player rule, I would have played the games completely differently! In my opinion, this change is the most significant:smile14:

Yeah, I realized that after I wrote it, but I was too lazy to correct it. Considering the possibility of pre-arranged games in the later stages of the tournament, the number of guaranteed qualifying spots is crucial for tournament strategy.

In reply to Wicc

Dark

11 years ago

Auto-translated

Wicc

Yeah, I realized that after I wrote it, but I was too lazy to fix it. Considering the possibility of arranged matches in the later stages of the tournament, the number of guaranteed spots is critical for the tournament strategy.

of course! like me, for example? I already started thinking from a certain round that I 100% wouldn't make it, but it turns out I still could have easily made it! And I wouldn't have taken any draws! And I wouldn't have played half-heartedly))
I'm waiting for Putin to punish the unfaithful organizers :smile12: :smile12: :smile04:

In reply to Wicc

HellLighT

11 years ago

Auto-translated

Wicc

Yeah, I realized that after I wrote it, but I was too lazy to fix it. Considering the possibility of arranged matches in the later stages of the tournament, the number of easy wins is critical for the tournament strategy.

You know, I didn't see a single word in the tournament registration rules about war of mages that eliminated players can return to the tournament in the order of a "live queue" for "dead souls." I think this is a blatant violation of all the rules! (the very rules that you are talking about here :smile04:) What nonsense, please calm down your democratically oppressed consciousness :smile36:
p.s. It's getting sad to watch your whining; everyone is unhappy with everyone else, everyone is being bullied, there's a dictatorship and lawlessness... and yet you pay the forum and then ask for things.

In reply to Wicc

rebellious

11 years ago

Auto-translated

The game between Yegor Korobeynikov and Dark30 from some round of OFB-8, with a decision made based on the save file.

Why was it acceptable in this game to make a decision after the time limit expired, especially at such an early stage of the game (turn 131)?
Why wasn't a decision made based on the save file in my game after a much later turn (217) had passed?
Or is that what it's called now?

Pit for LM

We try to run FB Tournaments in a varied way, without using standard schemes...

This cannot affect judging! This cannot involve changing the rules after the tournament has ended. The tournament is over when all results have been approved.
Variability in judging schemes is nothing more than subjectivism. How can we then talk about an objective decision if

Pit for LM

The decision regarding this game was made collectively: ... taking into account the participants' positions in the tournament (both were contenders and the result was important for both)...

All participants in the tournament are equal, and the approach to evaluating game positions should be the same and impartial, regardless of their status - whether it's a friendly game or a tournament game, etc. If you swap these games from different rounds, the result should be the same, but Cobra would have nothing to cling to then; he would need some help. Thus, the AC itself admitted that it makes decisions based on the circumstances (the players' interests), which is strictly prohibited, rather than on the evaluation of the game result. Therefore, all further arguments will be meaningless against the authoritarianism of certain categories.
P.S. The authorship of the crazy idea of transferring a conditional result from one game in a tournament to another tournament (how absurd does that sound) belongs to a dirty player (as he himself admits).
P.P.S. Cobra was offered the option of playing a new FB game before all this happened, but he bravely refused, suggesting three games, and immediately admitting that it was a joke.
Don't change the rules after the tournament has ended; 7 participants had already been clearly determined, but someone is constantly haunted by a weak Buchholz score.

Attachments 4

4 files attached • Total size: 50.5 KB