Posts from Developing the regulations for OFB and FB tournaments. Auto-translated

Yes, the playoffs are not a very good idea at all: For example, AlexVeliky will beat everyone 9-0, while lakerock IV will take 2nd place as usual. And in the final, he will show the full power of the lacquer, eliminating "skill-based" templates, resulting in an awkward situation... But again, if choosing between two evils, a template/castle for every tour is utter crap that should not be in the main HW Tournament.

Earlier in the thread, we discussed that in a round robin, a decisive match could be played early, in rounds 4-5 (conditionally).
By round 6, 1-2 contenders for the win will likely be determined.
For example, one of them will face players who have lost motivation (lost their chance for 1st place), while the other will face players with a shot at the top 3 (a conditional situation, but quite possible).

I want to develop a system of conducting that can keep everyone on their toes until the end of the tournament.
A final four in such a case would allow players from the middle of the table to compete for the 3rd and 4th slots.
Perhaps it's worth giving players from 1st and 2nd place a bonus in the form of starting with a 1-0 aggregate score when playing up to 2 wins.

On the other hand, Ave gave an example of a player going 9-0 in a round robin tournament, and in that case, an additional final between just 2 players would look unfair, and between 4 even more so.

Regarding templates/town. In FB-7, players were asked to submit a list of towns without repeats against each player before the start of the tournament, which introduced an imbalance, as weaker opponents were given Inferno/Tower, while favorites got top-tier towns, thereby making the fight for victory extremely difficult for those favorites. In that FB, templates were chosen by striking — that is, they struck templates suited to their town.

Naturally, I took this into account. In general, I have read all the threads on OFB and FB =)
That option didn't appeal to me much either.

The town selection system I want to include in the regulations is that you can ban the opponent from choosing 3-2-1 towns (depending on the tournament round), and only then make a choice.
This choice will be secret.
For example: Player A played Inferno in round 1 and Rampart in round 2.
Now it's round 3 — the opponent additionally bans Dungeon and Castle, and as a result Player A chooses from the remaining 5 towns. He informs the judge of his choice. His opponent does the same. After that, they start the game.

The difference in the rule is only if mirrored templates are used; I described the approximate order of town selection for them a bit earlier.

Regarding templates — it is proposed that the participants themselves choose 9 templates. The choice will be from a list of 14 templates. Choosing M-200, Anarchy, Yolka, etc. will be prohibited.
I would like to hear the opinion of potential FB participants about having a template for each round or striking templates
I support this idea, and here's why: Helllight and Kobra play Jebus Cross excellently — it's quite expected that in the case of striking templates, we won't see a game against them on Jebus Cross; FTS or Homunculs (who are HL-only in the final) clearly play well on HL+U, and as Ave put it, if he happened to land on ATG (conditionally), he would remove "skill templates"; I think this chain could be continued.

Overall, such a layer of rules with town selection and templates for each round adds a macro aspect to the tournament.
But then again, if the majority considers this all unnecessary nonsense, we can simply make a schedule for 10 rounds right away (as was done in FB-8), keep the striking of templates/towns, and periodically update the table with the results in the thread.

I'm in favor of a standard round-robin format, but definitely with three points for a win and a golden match for 1st place, if needed. I don't care about the castles. The same goes for the templates; the main thing is to avoid anything too extreme, like balance-focused gimmicks.

Added 6 minutes later
I also like the option of banning 1-2-3 castles for a specific opponent before the start of the game. This will add more variety to the tactics.

The selection includes a lot of mediocre maps (and based on a mandatory selection and for a specific Castle), giving many chances, let's say, to players with a rating of "1400+". At the same time, for example, there is no mirror match at all. It's the "main" tournament, what more can I say.

A lot of subpar maps, giving many chances to, let's say, players with a rating of "1400+", have been included in the selection (and based on mandatory maps and for a specific faction). Moreover, there is no mirror match at all. This is the "main" tournament, what more can I say?

I don't know how to implement mirror map templates in a system where participants provide a list of maps before the tournament starts. In this case, with the current rules, it is impossible.
Regarding the subpar maps in the list of templates, I don't even know how to comment on it. Maybe we should only leave the most popular template, 6LM10A, and play without any other templates :D

I don't know how to implement mirrored templates in a system where participants submit a list of towns before the tournament starts. In this type of regulation, as in the current offline version, it's not possible.
Regarding the poor quality of templates in the list, I don't even know how to comment. Maybe we should just keep the most popular template, 6lm10a, and play without the other templates :D

Why not give players the right to choose a template? Wait, they already came up with "Cherk"! Why don't we use it?

...maybe just keep the most popular 6lm10a template and play without any other templates :D

You're right! ;)

You're right! ;)

It's easier to create a separate tournament for 6lm10a, using a similar JC, and have fun playing it.

I don't quite understand the desire to force players to play with all castles and on all map templates. It seems that the forum isn't a space for experiments; it's better to stick to the most classic and frequently played rules. And those imply a draft of map templates and a draft/trade of castles, as this scheme is used in most tournaments.

If you want to see Hell on Jebel, you can use this scheme: in a best-of-three series, the map template is drafted only for the 3rd game, and in the first two, the players choose.