Posts from Tournament Regulations for the "Novice" Tournament.

Survey Criteria in message No. 22 of the topic!!!

The "Novichok" (Rookie) Summer-15 is coming to an end; before the start of "Novichok" Winter-16, it's worth raising this issue. Dirty posted a draft regulation in October, but it wasn't discussed on the forum, and I think that's necessary. Here's my proposed version:
An official, regular "Novichok" tournament is held twice a year.
A "Novichok-Winter" tournament is held as part of the "Winter - Spring" gaming season.
A "Novichok-Summer" tournament is held as part of the "Summer-Autumn" gaming season.

II. Participant Requirements

1. Players whose registration date on the Hv forum falls within the calendar dates of two completed seasonal tournaments and the season in which the Novichok tournament is directly held are invited to participate in the tournament.
That is: let's say the winter Novichok starts on February 1, 2016 – players with a registration date within the seasons (Winter-Spring 15, Summer-Autumn 15, and the current Winter-Spring 16, i.e., with a registration date no earlier than December 1, 2014) are invited.
The decision on whether to allow players with an earlier Hv registration to participate in the tournament will be made by the organizers in consultation with the AC (Administration Council).
2. Restrictions for participants:
- Players who have taken prize places in the Novichok tournament are not allowed to participate.
- Players who have participated in 2 tournaments from the Novichok series are not allowed to participate.
- Players with a permanent Hv rating of 1700+ at the time of submitting the registration application are not allowed to participate.
(or at the end of the last Hv season).
- Players with 100 or more official rated games on Hv are not allowed to participate.
- Players with an earlier Hv registration are not accepted into the tournament if they have 30 or more rated games on Hv.
- Experienced players coming to Hv from other gaming resources are not allowed to participate.

III. Schedule

1. The tournament is held within the timeframe of the Hv Seasonal Tournament.
2. Registration for the tournament lasts at least 14 days.
3. The duration of the tournament is at least 4 months.

IV. Tournament Format

1. The tournament is held according to the following scheme: Qualification, Group Stage, Playoffs.
- Qualification (optional stage): conducted if the number of registered players exceeds the established limit.
In the qualification round, players are divided into pairs, and matches are played until one victory.
- Group Stage: Groups of 6 people each. Participants in the group stage must play 5 games in the group - one against each opponent in the group.
The top 4 participants advance from the group to the playoff round.
(you can also add information about points and priority in case of a tie).
- Playoff Round: Held using a Double Elimination system (upper and lower brackets).
A player who loses in the upper bracket goes to the lower bracket, and a player who loses in the lower bracket is eliminated from the tournament.
2. Templates:
- Qualification and group stage games are played on the 5 most popular templates for two players without computers within the last seasonal tournament.
(That is: let's say that to determine the game templates in Novichok Winter-16, we use the statistics of the Summer-Autumn 15 season; it would also be worth abandoning the "Anarchy" template since one of the goals of the tournament is to learn the rules of Hv; perhaps it would also be worth leaving 4 templates without + 1 template with computers).
The template in qualification games is determined by draw. In the group stage, players will play 1 game on each of the templates.
(in the current Novichok, no one has complained about this innovation; on the contrary, they only received positive feedback from participants).
- In the playoff round, the top 2 most popular templates for 2 players and 6 computers are added to the list of group templates within the last seasonal tournament.
In playoff games, the game template is determined by draw.
- In Grand Final games, the player who advanced through the upper bracket selects 2 undesirable game templates from the list. After that, before each final game, the players alternately choose a template for the game from the remaining templates without repetition. The right to make the first choice of template is determined by the decision of the player who advanced to the final through the upper bracket.

P.S. My comments, which are not part of the regulation text, are highlighted in italics. :smile02:

Why does the list of templates emphasize templates without AI opponents and suggest excluding or almost excluding the latter?

I don't understand why there's a limit on the number of deck templates. Let players decide whether they want to play with templates or not. There should be at least 5 of the most popular templates based on the results of the season and the deck editor!

As I understand it, the "Novice" tournament series is primarily designed to improve the skills of those who want to enhance them and become competitive in subsequent battles against more experienced players. From my own experience, templates that actually improve skills are mirror templates, as they teach you to play against an opponent, not against the map. Encourage beginners to use 3DM1.

As I understand it, the "Novice" tournament series is primarily designed to improve the skills of those who want to improve and become competitive in subsequent battles against experienced players. So, based on my own experience, templates that actually improve skills are mirror templates because they teach you to play against an opponent, not against the map. Encourage beginners to use x3dm1.

You can only move on to subsequent battles against experienced players when you can consistently win on any map/with any setup. And that's the main problem for "novices."
This does not contradict the introduction of mirror matches.

Why does the list of templates emphasize templates without computers and suggest excluding or almost excluding the latter?

For the group stage, it is proposed to use either the 5 most popular templates from the last season for two players without computers, or 4 templates without computers + 1 template with computers.

It should be taken into account that the group stage lasts one and a half months (6-7 weeks), during which participants need to play 5 games. Templates without computers are easier to learn, and games on them usually end faster (with the possible exception of Diamond).

Also, in the playoff round, 2 more templates for 2 players and 6 computers are added.
Thus, in the playoffs, the ratio of templates "without" and "with" computers will be either 5-2 or 4-3.

I don't understand at all why limit the number of templates in the draft? Let the players decide for themselves whether they want to play with or without computers. There should be at least 5 of the most popular templates based on the results of the season and the draft!

The group stage option "1 game on each template" allows it to be held in such a short time with equal conditions for all participants. In the playoffs, the list of templates is expanded to 7, and a draft is added; also, more time is given for a game in the playoffs.

From my own experience, templates that really improve skills are mirror templates, because they teach you to play against an opponent, not against the map. Promote x3dm1 among beginners.

With this system, absolutely any template (except Anarchy) can be included in the list of game templates, including x3dm1.

Regarding the current rules for newcomers, I have no questions; everyone was informed of them from the start, and all participants are on equal footing. However, to be honest, it seems like there's a slight advantage for the player who advanced through the losers' bracket. I don't think choosing two templates from the start is a strong enough alternative to having a 1-0 lead from the start. I believe that choosing one template each, but starting with a 1-0 lead, would be fairer. I'm not arguing that my point of view might be biased by the current situation. I'm a little disappointed that after the first game of the grand final in the previous season, that would have already been a victory. With the current score of 2-1 in matches in most previous tournaments, that would again have been enough to win the tournament. Of course, the score is somewhat undermined by the fact that I chose more templates than my opponent. But I wouldn't say that's what I wanted; it would be better if we both chose one template each, but without these ideas about the importance of who chooses the template. Again, the choice of template itself is not a guarantee of victory. That is, I'm not arguing that my perception of this issue might be skewed. But we can recall practices from esports. In almost all tournaments, a 1-0 score is used in favor of the player who advanced through the winners' bracket. Exceptions: the introduction of a 0-0 score in The International 2, but we need to understand the reasons why this step was taken. The first is the coverage of the tournament. It seemed that the first International ended too quickly, and viewers would have liked to watch more games. The second is the difficult schedule for the teams that advanced through the losers' bracket; that is, by the grand final, the team from the losers' bracket should have spent a lot of energy and be more exhausted. The third is that the team from the losers' bracket is already showing all its trump cards in extra games, and the team from the winners' bracket can prepare for this. The variability of decisions in the pick stage in Dota is much higher than in Heroes, so all three reasons are not relevant for newcomer tournaments. And another example, which I personally consider the most fair after a best-of-3 in the winners' final, but which has another drawback: a greater range of games in the grand final (from 2 to 6). In Warcraft at the WCG Russia, two best-of-3 series were played in the grand final; for the player who advanced through the winners' bracket, one victory in the best-of-3 series is enough; for the player who advanced from the losers' bracket, they need to win both best-of-3 series. In this option, the player who advanced through the upper bracket has the same right as everyone else: the right to lose a series. Again, I have no complaints about Skadi; quite the opposite, in fact. This is just my point of view for future newcomer tournaments.

I have no questions regarding the regulations for the current newcomer; he was informed of everything from the start, and all participants are in equal conditions.

However, honestly, it seems like there's a slight advantage for the participant who made it through the losers' bracket. I don't think creating 2 templates from the start is a strong enough alternative to starting with a 1-0 score. I believe that creating 1 template from each participant in the losers' bracket, but starting with a 1-0 score, is more fair.

I completely agree. The winner of the lower bracket already had a chance to make a mistake. They already lost one series and need to prove that their loss was just a fluke. The winner of the winners' bracket hasn't lost a series and no longer has the right to make a mistake. A 1-0 score seems more fair. The winner has a chance to make a mistake, and the loser has a chance to still become the winner after being eliminated from the upper bracket.

I developed the "Newcomer Summer 2015" ruleset, taking into account the fact that it would start with a delay due to the "Newcomer Winter 2015" tournament lasting longer than planned. I based it on the "Newcomer Summer 2014" ruleset, in which I participated myself, and which Roger and Sam organized quite well. If I remember correctly, in "Newcomer Summer 2014," the playoffs started in mid-August, while in "Newcomer Summer 2015," the playoffs were scheduled to begin in October. Therefore, when creating the ruleset, I decided that in the upper bracket playoffs, the round of 16 and quarterfinals would be played in a best-of-one format, and only the semifinals would be best-of-three (previously, all matches in the upper bracket were played in a best-of-three format). Since it's possible to lose very frustratingly in a best-of-one match (an example from the current tournament is Redrash vs. Elen117, and in some reports, the outcome of a match was decided due to a minor mistake), in the ruleset for this tournament, I decided to abandon the "full double elimination" system and the 1-0 start in the grand final, but instead introduced some other bonuses for the winner of the upper bracket. Of course, it turned out that a player who lost a best-of-three match in the final of the upper bracket made it to the grand final through the lower bracket, but this was impossible to predict. If we keep the "full double" system in the playoffs, then we need to introduce best-of-three matches from the round of 16 in the upper bracket.

In my opinion, with a double-elimination bracket, the fairest option is as follows: - The series is played in a best-of-3 or best-of-5 format, or any other format desired. - If the player who advanced through the upper bracket wins the first series, they are the champion. If they lose the series, then: - A second series is played to determine the tournament winner, thus creating completely equal conditions for both participants. If there is no time for these series, at a minimum, the series should start with a score of 1-0 in favor of the winner. All other "bonuses" are a farce and a mockery.

In my opinion, with a double-elimination bracket, the fairest option is as follows:
-The series is played in a best-of-3 or best-of-5 format, or any other format you prefer.
-If the player who advanced through the upper bracket wins the first series, they are the champion. If they lose the series, then
-a second series is played to determine the tournament winner, thus creating completely symmetrical conditions for both participants.
If there is no time for these series, at a minimum, the series should start with a score of 1-0 in favor of the winner.
All other "bonuses" are a farce and a sham.

In my opinion, playing 2 best-of-5 series is a hassle.
Usually, in tournaments, either 2 best-of-3 series are played, with a one-series advantage for the winner, or 1 best-of-5 series with a one-map advantage for the winner.

in my opinion, playing a best-of-5 series is a hassle.
Usually, in tournaments, they play either a best-of-3 series, with the winner having a one-series advantage, or a best-of-5 series with the winner having a one-map advantage.

That's exactly what I wrote about.

I was recently thinking about the issue of playing in the grand final, and I came to the conclusion that the winner should not have any advantages. I believe that the player who came through the losers' bracket has atoned for their previous losses, at least by winning one extra match. And if they went through several stages of the lower bracket, they have played a noticeably larger number of games.

I was recently thinking about the grand final and came to the conclusion that the winner shouldn't have any advantages. I believe that the player who came through the losers' bracket has atoned for their mistakes, at least by winning one extra match, and if they went through several stages of the lower bracket, they have played a significantly larger number of games.

This gives them an additional chance to win the tournament. The winner of the winners' bracket doesn't get that chance. And yet, very often, the winner of the winners' bracket sends their grand final opponent to the losers' bracket. So why should the latter have an additional chance, while the winner doesn't?

The has described everything very well. His options are good. And the mirror match with an additional series is the fairest.

This gives him an extra chance to win the tournament. The winner of the winners' bracket won't have that chance. And yet, very often, the winner of the winners' bracket sends their grand final opponent to the losers' bracket. Why then does one have an extra chance, and the winner doesn't?

I'm not presenting my opinion as the absolute truth, but I believe that this "chance" isn't worth the time wasted on the matches. If we were talking about a game like Hearthstone, where a best-of-three match takes about 30 minutes, then in Heroes, it takes a month, or even two! Due to the excessive time wasted, as well as the low chances of victory for someone from the losers' bracket, I believe that the double-elimination system is not suitable for Heroes. IMHO, of course.