Posts from Developing the regulations for OFB and FB tournaments.

Tournament participants of FB-10 must do the following:

1. Vote for the templates you wish to play on during the tournament.

List of templates for voting: Panic, Balance L, 2sm4d(3), Diamond, Mini-Nostalgia, Jebus Cross, h3dm1, Mirror Diamond, 6lm10a, 8mm6a, 8xm8a, 8xm12a, Nostalgia, Spider.

You must select a maximum of 9 templates from the list, then send your list to me either via private message on the forum or via icq.
Each participant may cast a maximum of one vote per template.
Once votes from all participants are received, they will be announced in the tournament thread.
The 9 templates with the highest number of votes will be played in the tournament.
If several templates receive the same number of votes and one or more of these templates must be excluded from the final list, the template to be excluded will be determined by lot.
If participants' votes are distributed among 8 or fewer templates, the remaining number of templates will be added at the tournament organizer's discretion from the unselected templates in the original list.

Setting options for templates:
Panic, Balance L - slow/medium roads, obelisks banned, timer 19-8-1:15
2sm4d(3), Mini-Nostalgia - all road types, timer 19-8-1:15
Diamond - medium roads
h3dm1, Mirror Diamond - medium roads, redrush allowed, timer 24-8:30-1:15
Jebus Cross - fast roads, redrush allowed.
Nostalgia - fast roads, GM rebuild.
other XL+U templates - medium roads, GM rebuild.
where the timer is not specified - the HB timer is used.

2. Vote in this thread for the rule for selecting templates and towns in the tournament

Three options are presented for selection.
The option that receives the highest number of votes from participants will be used in the tournament.
Multi-choice will be available in the voting - if you do not mind which option is used, vote for all three options simultaneously.
In case of a tie, option number 1 takes priority over 2 and 3, and option number 2 takes priority over 3.

Option 1) The game template is chosen by striking out; the second player in the pair starts striking.
Starting town and color (and hero, if necessary) are determined by bidding.

Option 2) A fixed template without repetitions will be set for each round. The list of templates for all rounds will be announced before the start of the tournament.
Starting town and color (and hero, if necessary) are determined by bidding.

Option 3) A fixed template without repetitions will be set for each round. The list of templates for all rounds will be announced before the start of the tournament.
The starting town is determined by the participants' choice, whereby it is allowed to play each town once during the tournament. The starting color is determined by bidding.

Clarifications on the rules of the items:
1) Templates are struck from the list of 9 templates until 1 template remains, on which the game will be played (used in Option № 1)

2) Before the start of bidding, the server player clicks "Rand vs Rand" or "Random Town" (for mirror templates) in the HB rules patch options to determine the towns for bidding.
*If the same pair of towns is rolled on a non-mirror template, a free re-roll is performed upon the request of one of the participants.
*If the rolled pair of towns (town for mirror) does not satisfy any of the participants, each participant has the right to request a re-roll once. The second player in the pair is the first to state whether they wish to conduct a re-roll.
Re-roll rule - 1000 gold is deducted from the participant's starting gold (not transferred to the opponent); the rolled towns (town) are banned from appearing again, and a re-roll is performed.
*In the case of a mirror pair of towns, bidding is conducted for the choice of hero. Before bidding begins, each player has the right to ban 1 hero, after which bidding starts. The second player in the pair bans first and makes the first bid.
Bidding sequence - bidding for town (hero) - bidding for color. The second player in the pair starts the bidding. The bid in the auction must be a multiple of "100". (Options № 1 and № 2)

3) The player determines their own starting town immediately before the game. It is allowed to start with each town only once.
Depending on the round number, it will be allowed to ban from 1 to 3 towns from the list of towns not yet used by your opponent before choosing a town (Rounds 1-3 - 3 bans, Rounds 4-6 - 2 bans, Round 7 - 1 ban).
After each player has banned towns for their opponent, participants report their chosen town to the tournament organizer. Then they proceed to the game.
In the case of playing on a mirror template, the town for the game is determined by lot.
The preliminary ban rule does not apply when playing on a mirror template.
Towns that each participant has already played in the tournament are crossed off the list, after which the game host determines the starting town for the game using the "Random Town" option. In this case, town re-roll is prohibited.
If players choose the same towns or when playing on a mirror template, bidding for the hero is conducted. Before bidding begins, each player has the right to ban 1 hero, after which bidding starts. The second player in the pair bans first and makes the first bid. Bidding for the hero is conducted before bidding for the color. (Option № 3)

Instead of the 2nd and 3rd places in the previous OFB, I suggest holding a "wild card" tournament in October-November between the OFB and FB, where these two slots will be determined.
The winners of regular tournaments throughout the year (novice tournaments, M-200, Wars of Mages, Outlaw, Jebus Cross, etc.) will qualify for the wild card tournament, provided that this possibility is stated in the regulations of these tournaments. The remaining participants will be selected from the OFB participants who did not qualify for the FB directly but took the highest places.

Could we hold a tournament among the top 8 (10, 20, ...) players in the ranking who didn't qualify? There were ideas to make it more valuable.

In my opinion, a round-robin format isn't the best solution for the group stage. Besides the motivation issues, there are no decisive games, no final that would attract a large audience. The top 2 players might play each other in the 4th round and then just focus on eliminating weaker opponents.

The optimal format is unknown, but it should include a final in a best-of-3 or best-of-5 format.

The main problem with OFB is the disqualifications.

I wouldn't consider this a problem at all. The point of OFB isn't the competition itself, but rather selecting N players. Moreover, the Swiss system isn't sensitive to disqualifications.

As an alternative, the main part – the FB – could be reduced to an Olympic-style format with best-of-3, best-of-5, or best-of-7 series for 8 or 16 players. The advantage is the increased spectacle of the final matches and the absence of motivation loss for those not competing for the win. There are also disadvantages.

The main problem with the OFB is the disqualifications and bans, so in this area, it is necessary to establish clear guidelines for registration/refusal of registration, and grounds for disqualification from tournaments.

The main problem with the OFB is the Swiss system, in which players who have lost their chances of qualifying for the final bracket continue to participate.

Could you organize a tournament among the top 8 (10, 20, ...) players based on their ranking from those who didn't qualify? There was a desire to make it more valuable.

I didn't quite understand. If you mean expanding the number of participants in the wildcard tournament, then this is quite reasonable; let's say up to 16 participants. In this case, the motivation to fight for a higher position in the OFB will also increase.

The main problem with the OFB is the Swiss system, in which players who have lost their chances of qualifying for the FB continue to participate.

I don't consider this a problem, as objectively, more than 50% of the participants don't have a chance of being in the top 5 even before the tournament starts.
I judge by myself; when I register, I perfectly understand my strengths, and the OFB is a tournament for me and most players to gain experience and practice playing against stronger opponents.
Therefore, the lack of motivation is an excuse for unscrupulous players, and a system that reduces the number of such players or at least reduces the likelihood of such behavior would be quite useful.

In my opinion, a round-robin format is not the best solution for the FB. In addition to the motivation issue, there are no decisive games or a final that would attract a large audience. The top 2 players could play against each other in the 4th round and then just start eliminating each other.

It is possible to develop a draw system in which 10 players are divided into 2 groups based on points, and the top group is matched with the bottom group to postpone the meetings between the leaders to the final stage of the round-robin tournament.

Or, as an option, a final four after the round-robin tournament: 1-4 and 2-3, and then the final (but this will require approximately 2 additional months)

1.1 Templates for the OFB tournament are created by the tournament organizer in agreement with the AC.
Template selection for rounds: either a draw is held for templates for all rounds before the tournament begins, or a template is chosen for each round before the round starts.

1.2 City selection for OFB: players submit a list of cities for the templates to the organizer before the tournament begins, without repetitions.

I don't see anything good in these rules for OFB. Participants in OFB are not required to be equally good at playing all templates and all Castles. Moreover, with this system, all the skills of scouting and trading become unnecessary, which actually depend heavily on experience, but here all the experience turns out to be useless. And you can simply get a clearly disadvantageous match-up several times through a random draw. All of this does not look like a fair system for determining the strongest players.
I liked last year's system much more, when the template was scouted, and the Castle was chosen before the game. The only difference is that there was a limit of 2 times for any Castle. It could be made one Castle - but still before each game, and not immediately before the tournament.

I don't see anything good in such rules for the offline tournament. Participants are not required to be equally good at all templates and all Castles; moreover, with such a system, all the skills of scouting and trading, which actually depend heavily on experience, become unnecessary, and all that experience turns out to be useless. And you can simply get a few times in a clearly disadvantageous match-up by random draw. All of this does not look like a fair system for determining the strongest players.
I liked last year's system much more, when the template was chosen, and the Castle was selected before the game. The only difference is that there was a limit of 2 times for any Castle. It could be made one Castle - but still before each game, and not immediately before the tournament.

I agree that this format introduces a lot of additional randomness and that you can end up in a losing situation in terms of Castles on some templates, especially in the later stages, where the players are already comparable in level. Although, for variety, it's quite fun to play like this. But last year, I didn't like the offline tournament system at all; the choice of cities was too easy.

Last year was a kind of experiment; they wanted to have one castle each, but people objected, and they ended up with something in between. I think the rating threshold of 1800 is quite absurd. For example, people put in some effort during a season and managed to get a rating of 1800 for a while (for registration purposes). Then, of course, the rating naturally dropped because it no longer reflects their actual strength, given that the pool of players between 1700 and 1800 is quite varied, and there are many strong players.
Also, the OFB (Official Fighting Battles) draw is completely random from the first round. If you're constantly talking about the rating, then at least make the draw for the first two rounds based on rating. And then allow the person with the highest rating to participate in the OFB. In the OFB, withdrawals are very decisive; don't come up with nonsense. Sometimes, a withdrawal decides everything for the top spots in the final rounds, but if your opponents withdraw, you practically have no chance.
Currently, the FB (Fighting Battles) also doesn't attract enough strong players due to the quota. And regarding the system, you could create 4 groups (16 players) that are balanced based on the same rating and their achievements. 8 players advance, and then, as always, a double-elimination bracket follows. That's where you can have best-of-3 and best-of-5 matches, etc.

Someone provided a link to a similar topic. There's a lot of useful information there. I’ll post it here again: [DISCUSSION] OFB. Postscriptum. Therefore, once more: • 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw – because as the finish approaches, there are many fixed matches; and in addition to this – “Sofia rules” – draws only through judges; • It would be interesting for the OFB itself to have a final four; • Accordingly, the number of participants in the OFB should be a multiple of 4, possibly from 4*4 or 4*3 winners of group stages with a round-robin system, or from 1st-2nd places + quarterfinals; • Allocate as many spots as possible for OFB participants; you can also remove the "Favorites" tournament from the qualifying rounds, since it is not representative (Citadel, Tower, Inferno rest there); • Hold a lottery among ten prize-winners of various tournaments (+ one more at the organizer's discretion) to determine the wild card; • In the first round of the OFB, still conduct pairings based on rating (current and/or plus organizational), and not randomly – this will eliminate strong players meeting immediately and make the distribution into skill groups more orderly and even. • And nothing prevents choosing cities for participants before the round itself, rather than providing them with a list right away – this is a more pleasant option for randomness, allowing you to choose stronger cities towards the end of the tournament, and reducing the organizational burden.

4. A player shall be disqualified from the tournament after 2 technical defeats.

A tech defeat could be an in-game event, such as a redraw, or failing to pass through security, so this point needs clarification.

So, to summarize the discussion based on this thread and the one it links to:

FB-10 will be held in 2 stages: the first stage will be a round-robin format with 9 rounds (from mid-October to early March), and the second stage will be a final four with an Olympic-style bracket (March-April). The seeding will be done using a system where the seeded players (the top 5) play against the unseeded players (the bottom 5) as long as this is possible.
The seeded players for the first round will be: the winner of FB-9, the winner of OFB-10, the winner of the "Only HL" tournament, the winner of the "Favorites" tournament, and the player with the highest HV rating.
This approach will allow the decisive matches to be postponed to the final 3 rounds.

List of maps: 9 maps will be determined by a vote among the participants, who will choose from a list of 14 maps.
In the round-robin stage, games will be played on a different map each round. The maps for all rounds will be assigned before the start of the tournament games. In the final four, the map will be chosen randomly.
Cities per game: In the round-robin tournament, the player chooses the city directly before the round, and it is allowed to play only one game with a specific city. If a mirror map is chosen, the cities on which both players have played will be removed from the game lobby, and then a city will be randomly selected for the game.
In the final four, the cities will be determined by a randomizer + negotiation.

In the round-robin stage, 3 points are awarded for a win, and 1 point for a draw.
The time limit for each game is 2 weeks (with the exception of the New Year holidays).
These are just the main points without the nuances; I will add the complete regulations after the 8th round of OFB. There will be another 3 weeks to make the final adjustments.

It would be great to come up with another set of crazy rules without consulting the participants on Facebook.

It would be great to come up with another set of crazy rules without first getting feedback from the Facebook group members.

It would be nice to contribute something instead of just posting without offering any suggestions in a thread that was created specifically for discussion. :confused:

Well, the idea of a final might not be bad from the viewers' perspective. Although, in essence, it will give an extra chance to those who didn't actually win. I think that we should just stick to a round-robin format, and if it's really necessary, a round-robin + a Best-of-3/5 final between the top two. The idea of having different castles for each round was tried a few Facebook tournaments ago and only caused outrage. I think we should stick to the standard map template, and then have a draft for castles, with a checkmark for restructuring, and a mandatory replacement with HL+U (we can conduct a poll among the participants at the start of the Facebook tournament for this). If you really want to introduce some "gimmick," let it be a Best-of-3/5 final (I emphasize, between TWO), and not a mess with castles/templates for each round and other nonsense.

Round-robin plus playoffs is too much. IMHO.