Posts from Post-tournament analysis and discussion of the CIS Tournament Regulations.

Whatever happened there cannot be changed now. When I found out that Lizard won, I thought, "Good job," but now I think that this victory is worthless, as others have written.

Well, I'm also not thrilled that such a situation occurred with such well-known and respected players. It's very sad.

By the way, this is another argument against those who believe that the title of CIS Champion is worthless and that it's easier and perhaps even more prestigious to win some online tournament.

Guys, please stop arguing. There will be no review of the CIS results anyway. As a judge, I might have interfered, but I don't really care about such things – if two players wanted the same result and I gave it to them, that's fine, and I don't care how it happened (whether they flipped a coin, played poker, or played "bottle"). Each person will decide for themselves whether such a victory deserves respect or not; let's leave the moral aspect to the participants. Perhaps that's why there were no traditional celebrations, like tossing the winner in the air or taking champion photos. There's a term called "Pyrrhic victory," and I think this is exactly that case. Regarding the overall tournament format, I, like the organizers and judges of previous tournaments, have racked my brains over the format, but nothing is better than the current system. We need to find a golden mean so that there is a clear winner, the majority of participants don't get eliminated after the first round, and those with one loss still have a chance to compete for first place. Plus, we need to fit everything within a certain timeframe and still have free time for poker and sightseeing around the city. I'm open to any suggestions that meet these conditions. Of course, if there are exactly 16 participants, it's easy to come up with a system; you can do anything, and it will be good. But what do you do when there are 21 or 23 participants? Then you have free slots, mixed pairs, and a lot of hassle. It's funny to hear about double elimination; I'd be happy to see this system in action, for example, at the famous Volga Championship. For those who are too lazy to delve into history, I can remind you of the amazing Moscow M-200 or the last St. Petersburg tournament.

but I take such things rather calmly.

In the end, some agreed, others, and still others – what's the point of the competitive process, "judge"? A tournament called "AGREED 2016"?

In the end, some agreed, others... what's the point of the competitive process with a "judge"? Is this tournament called "AGREED 2016"?

I believe that not everyone in this world is for sale! But those who want to sell the result and have enough sense not to shout about it in the entire hall – it's impossible to stop them.

I believe that not everyone in this world is corrupt! But those who want to sell the result and are smart enough not to shout about it to the whole room – it’s impossible to stop them.

Well, I know that you get used to bad things quickly, and that everyone has their price:cool: And if that's the case, then you can calculate without a calculator how much the championship in this tournament costs.

and everything has its price:cool:

Lol) Well, it's obvious that for 100-200 thousand rubles, you can buy a win at any stage of the tournament, almost against any opponent. Start saving money to participate in the next tournament :D

Lol) Well, it's obvious that for 100-200 thousand rubles, you can buy a win in any stage of the tournament, almost against any opponent. Start saving money to participate in the next tournament :D

"Agreed 2017":) ?

and we also need to meet the deadlines.

We finished on the 5th, this time, "-", mostly left on the 7th, "=", 1.5 days of doing nothing related to the tournament.

plus free time for poker

With all due respect, is this some kind of sacred cow that absolutely cannot be sacrificed for the sake of Heroes? Then there's Hearthstone. And then another popular game will come out, let's say it's called "BoozeFest," and we'll be faced with the need to meet deadlines for Heroes in just one day.

and city tours...

This time, I especially remember... let me think, I just did so many "tours" that it's hard to pick out one specific thing...

P.S.: This is all sarcasm, of course; overall, I'm happy with the meeting.

I haven't been actively following the forum lately. I saw that Lizard won the CIS tournament and thought, "Good for him, what willpower and perseverance, even considering the mixed bracket and the fact that Hellight lost to a noob – it doesn't really matter, he still did great." Now I've read the entire thread and, to put it mildly, I'm surprised. I won't go into the details of the case or talk about the fairness of the championship; if anyone thinks this is normal and appropriate, I have nothing to discuss with them. I just want to point out that one of the participants in this deal is a member of the AC (Administration Council) and handles controversial issues, which are often on a moral or near-moral level. Moreover, I might be wrong right now (maybe something has changed), but the main judge of the tournament was Dirty. From the discussion, I didn't quite understand whether he was aware of this situation or not, but it indirectly seems that he was aware almost immediately. He is also a member of the AC and is responsible for ensuring that the game is played with respect and fairness. There's a lot to think about in the upcoming elections, which I hope are not far off. It's just a shame that everything will be swept under the rug.

...............................
There's a lot to think about for the next elections, which I hope won't be too far off.
It's a shame that everything will slow down.

What are we waiting for? Let's go to the "marsh" tomorrow...

"For us" = "for everyone"? When I say "us," I primarily mean the thread starter and myself. Like Merlin, I believe that LAN tournaments should primarily feature high-quality, well-organized games. And I would like to discuss this with people who come to LANs to play, not to drink/have barbecues/arrange "fixed matches." Sorry for the "delusions of grandeur."

Sergey, then you're asking the wrong people for their opinion. The three of us you mentioned didn't actually play. We came to relax with old and new friends who are fans of the Heroes series, to relax, have a barbecue, and probably have a few drinks in good company. (Dim, Lyosha, correct me if I'm wrong).
Of course, each of us probably rooted for someone, and we all supported all the players at least morally, and overall, everything was fine. Of course, there are always downsides, and you can't please everyone. But we will work on this and improve it, so to speak. That's what this thread was created for, as I understand it. But I see that a flame war is still prevailing. (

Regarding fixed matches, when I found out the next day about such an outcome of the tournament, I was shocked, even to the point of using a different vowel in the expletive, to be honest

I sincerely want to congratulate Kostya on his well-deserved victory! The erotic fantasies of some players are, of course, amusing, but no more than that. It's as if they only exist in Hauntville or Cild, and haven't ventured anywhere else. They complain about free slots, or that they come to play from morning till night and don't want anyone to bother them. What nonsense! Don't you have enough time to play at home? The CIS tournament is a mini-tournament, where luck plays a role, but skill is more important. In the current format, you can't afford to lose – historically, the loser is eliminated from the competition. And this is the full right of the player – to lose, to win, to concede games, or to do something else within reasonable limits – people have paid a lot of money for this, so they can come and play. Given the current realities, Kostya didn't violate anything. Do you want to develop a special code of rules and regulations for the CIS 17+ tournament? Please do. Develop it, and we'll discuss it – it's not a fact that playing non-stop like moles will appeal to the absolute majority. But for now, let's welcome the new CIS champion in Heroes – Konstantin Demidovich! Hooray!

Glad to see you back from your slumber! ))))))))))

Out of all the suggestions, there's a lack of specifics regarding the key issues... I've given it some thought regarding the regulations and decided to share my ideas. The key points, in my opinion, are: players should be on equal footing (so that the randomness of the draw doesn't affect their chances of competing for the main prize), all participants who show up and want to play should be able to participate in the tournament (a strict selection process is clearly not suitable for this tournament, as we barely manage to reach the required number of participants each time), and there should be a clear final (not based on points, but a specific match that determines who the champion is and who gets the Cobra medal :)). A bit of background: we've stuck with the Swiss system as the only option that allows us to stay within the time limit and "balances out" the uneven number of participants, plus it "sort of gives a chance to compete even with one loss." In reality, a player who loses in the first round has no chance of winning in our format, as they physically won't be able to catch up in points with those who are undefeated in the limited number of rounds. So, let's not pretend that our shortened Swiss system gives a chance to win with one loss; we've never actually played it to the end (after the results are recorded, there are always players with one loss who could theoretically still play). We can't physically manage a double-elimination bracket, and an Olympic-style bracket with an odd number of players looks bad – some people are sweating from the first round, while others are just hanging around. The dynamics of the tournaments are such that we consistently get more than 16 but fewer than 32 participants. The main problem is the uneven number of participants; even if we create a nice bracket before the tournament through a selection process, we can't be protected from unforeseen circumstances (Stepa's case is a recent example), which will again make it uneven. Based on all of the above, I've come up with the following: at the start, players are divided into 2 groups, each with an even number of participants. This is achieved by having the judge play in the first round if there is an odd number of participants (this is the only round in which they can play; I think many would support the idea of the judge not participating in the tournament). After the first round, we will most likely have an odd number of players with 1 win. Here's the key point: we add to each group the number of contenders for the win to reach 8 from those who lost. How to do this is an open question: it could be a re-buy, a draw from a bag, hero contests, or any other bright idea that comes to mind. As a result, we have two groups of 8 people, from which, after 2 rounds, exactly 2 people with the maximum number of wins remain (the game is played according to the Swiss system: only those with the same number of points can play against each other). These 4 people compete in the final part of the tournament, with the semi-final draw being random from a bag, followed by the final match between the winners and a match for 3rd-4th place. According to this scheme, a player who loses in the 1st round has a real chance to win the tournament. In terms of time, we can easily fit it into 5 days, with one game per day. We have a specific final match that can be broadcast with engaging commentators and the appropriate hype. That's the idea; what do you think?

The idea is good, the only question is how the groups will be determined to ensure they are evenly matched in terms of player strength.