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

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 whole thread and, to put it mildly, I'm surprised.
I won't go into the details of the situation or talk about the fairness of the championship; if someone thinks this is normal and appropriate, then 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 Administration Committee (AK) and handles controversial issues, which are often on a moral or similar level.
Moreover, I might be wrong (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 the situation or not, but it seems he was aware almost immediately. He is also a member of the AK and is responsible for ensuring fair play.
There is something to think about in the upcoming elections, which I hope are not far off.
It's a pity that everything will be swept under the rug.
There are questions, for example, who to choose? Do they have enough authority, skill, and knowledge? Is there a desire to sort all this out, analyze it, and make decisions? In my opinion, Dirty is better as a coordinator; it's unlikely that anyone else will be able to handle it. Although, I don't think he's clinging to this position. As for RedWhite in the AK, as far as I remember, he got there without much effort, and I think that leaving the AK won't be a shock for him, but these kinds of discussions on the forum might lead to more problems, so maybe it's not worth stirring things up? In fact, the guys got together, had fun, played, and everyone is happy. Now, starting a discussion about fairness/unfairness is up to them. This is just my opinion.

As an option, a transparent fundraising campaign could be organized a few months before the tournament, collecting funds from online viewers for a high-quality broadcast. Perhaps with a detailed report on where the money went, so that these funds don't end up being spent on beer or something else. I think there will be people who are willing to donate. Because no matter how hard I try to watch CIS tournaments from home, it's simply unwatchable.

Many are unhappy with the streams from the tournament, and many criticize this... In reality, there were at least 5 players on site who were ready to stream, with laptops set up for this purpose, but the outgoing channel was in such a terrible state that it couldn't even handle a single full-fledged stream. The viewers were informed of this after the very first test broadcast. We had to accept this fact because we couldn't change it and try to put together something in this situation (thank you, Zephyr, for not abandoning the idea). We found a solution by capturing the image from the TV via the local network and streaming with the lowest bitrate, but the TV itself, along with Heroes, couldn't run smoothly on all laptops; many experienced noticeable lag. Add to this the fact that the Wi-Fi in the hall was constantly disconnecting, and we had to reconnect both the game and the TV, which was incredibly frustrating for the players (I myself swore repeatedly when the TV reconnection window popped up at an inopportune moment during an important battle). But the viewers don't care about all this; they just want entertainment, and no matter how much you explain, they keep repeating the same thing: give, give, give... At first, we tried to explain why the stream was so bad, but it was a thankless task, and then we just ignored them because they were getting on our nerves. Especially annoying were the people who demanded that we give them the TV for restreaming, even after we explained that the already weak channel would be further strained by the TV (we connected the TV via the local network and it didn't consume their internet), they continued to shout - give us the TV, we will restream... Given all this, I'm not at all surprised that some players simply refused to provide the TV, and the commentators got tired of the chat.
Coverage of the event is important, and it's a pity that it failed again. In the future, ideally, we should rent a good portable internet hub for the duration of the tournament so that we can stream from the commentator's computer and from anywhere else, as long as it's interesting. In this simple way, we can solve the key issue of broadcasts and expand the range of possible venues (if there is no internet at the base, then our own portable option is simply ideal), which can significantly reduce the costs of the venue. Devices for this purpose exist; on sc2tv, there is a streamer-taxi driver who streams very high-quality video directly from his car. He uses a miracle box that houses several 3G/4G modems, which provides a stable outgoing traffic = high-quality stream. I think you can find out the contacts of the people who develop this device from Sanya (soulener) and discuss the possibility of renting it for the next tournament, or even buying the device with part of the tournament fee and renting only the modems.

I've been watching streams of official Heroes tournaments for a year, two years, even three. And in all that time, I haven't seen a single stream that wasn't a mess. A high-quality stream of the main Heroes event of the year would be a huge plus for the community. Thank you for the suggestions; I'm sure there will be people who take them into consideration.

If not a year or two, it's strange that I forgot about the streams from Minsk; the internet there was amazing. My stream from there is https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFgTAZ9VKHdHd6ZP0jmSZ6uS-Nuw4h1ce
And Tvarina and Just commentated the final together; I just don't remember if a recording still exists.

My stream from there: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFgTAZ9VKHdHd6ZP0jmSZ6uS-Nuw4h1ce

(In any case, I believe that one of the main priorities when choosing a location should be a reliable, high-quality internet connection, or, as you said above, a portable station. (although I don't know much about it))

It's a pity that Minsk was somehow missed. From what I remember recently: the Kyiv championship, which Tvarina and Co. organized, maybe that wasn't even a CIS event. Despite Tvarina's efforts, the stream was terrible. In any case, I believe that one of the main priorities when choosing a location should be high-quality, reliable internet, or, as you said above, a portable station. (although I don't know much about it)

Well, excuse me, but don't compare the Kiev Open Cup, for which a cottage was rented and internet was set up in the cottage just so that there would be at least some way to do a broadcast, with the CIS tournament, which is held at a venue where they claim to have good internet.

I'll say it again, the problem is that the internet was good for downloading, which was also checked. But we didn't think to check it for upload speed. No one knew that this could happen. Yes, it was definitely a mistake, next time we need to check specifically with a stream to avoid such mistakes.

Well, excuse me, but don't compare the Kiev Open Cup, for which a cottage was rented and internet was set up in the cottage just so that there would be at least some way to do a broadcast, with the CIS tournament, which is held at a venue where they claim to have good internet.

Of all the suggestions, there's a bit of... I thought about the regulations and decided to share. The key points, in my opinion: players should be on equal footing (so that the vagaries of the draw don't affect the chance to compete for the main prize), all those who arrive and want to play can participate in the tournament (a strict selection is clearly not for this tournament; the quorum is barely reached each time), there should be a clear final (not based on points, but a specific game that decides who the champion is and who gets the Cobra medal :)). A little bit of lyrics: we clung to the Swiss system as the only option that allows us to stay within the time limit and "levels out" the uneven number of participants, plus it "sort of gives a chance to compete with 1 loss." In fact, a player who loses in the first round has no chance of winning in our format, given the limited number of rounds; they physically won't be able to catch up in points with those who are undefeated. So, let's not be disingenuous and pretend that our shortened Swiss system gives a chance to win with 1 loss; we haven't played it to the end even once (after the results are fixed, there are always players with 1 loss who could formally still play). We can't physically play a double-elimination tournament, and an Olympic-style tournament with an odd number of players looks bad – some sweat from the first round, while others stroll around during the free slots. The dynamics of the tournaments are such that we consistently gather more than 16, but less than 32 people. The main problem is the uneven number of participants; even if we create a beautiful bracket before the tournament through selection, we are not immune to unforeseen circumstances (Stepa's example is still fresh), which will again make it uneven.
Based on all of the above, I came up with the following: at the start, players are divided into 2 groups, each with an even number of participants. This is achieved by the fact that, in the case of an odd number, a judge plays in the first round (this is the only round in which he can play; I think many will support the point about 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 is the key point: we add to each group the number of contenders for the victory to 8 from those who lost. How to do this is an open question: it is possible to have a re-buy, a draw from a bag, heroic contests, or any other bright idea that comes to someone's mind; it doesn't matter. 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 who have the same number of points can play against each other). These 4 people compete in the final part of the tournament; the semi-final draw is random from a bag, and the final and the match for 3-4th place are played. According to this scheme, a player who loses in the 1st round has a real chance to win the tournament; we clearly fit within 5 days, counting one game per day; we have a specific final game that can be broadcast with the involvement of loud commentators and appropriate hype. That's the idea; what do you think?