Posts from Tournament rules for "One for All". Auto-translated

A team of 4 people, in my opinion, is a good number. Better than three.

Those who think that 4 is better than 3 should immediately suggest what to do in the playoffs if the score is tied at 2:2 in the decisive game.

And it doesn't bother you that Grizzly has a rating of 1700+ :cool:

Apparently, not everyone here understands the jokes. Grizzly is the best!!

Anyone who thinks that version 4 is better than version 3 should immediately suggest what to do in the playoffs if the score is tied 2:2 in the decisive game.

If there is a tie 2-2 in the 3rd round of the playoffs, the result of the match between the players in the 1st slot will be decisive.
This means the cumulative score over 3 games (3-0 or 2-1), as a tie in a single game will be prohibited in the playoffs.

the determining factor should be the result of the match between players in slot 1.

This is not correct. In my opinion, the victory of one bracket should not be "more important" than another.

This isn't right. In my opinion, the victory of one team shouldn't be "more significant" than another.

Or, there could be a rule for the playoffs:
in the playoffs, a match between teams is played until 2 overall team victories are achieved; in case of a tie after 2 games in the match between teams, a decisive game is played.
In case of a tie in the decisive game, depending on the stage of the playoffs, an additional game is played between players of a specific slot.
In the 1/8 round - 4th slot;
In the 1/4 round - 3rd slot;
In the 1/2 round - 2nd slot;
In the final - 1st slot.

Or, alternatively, implement this rule for the playoffs:
in the playoffs, a match between teams is played until 2 overall team victories are achieved; in case of a tie after 2 games in the match between teams, a decisive game is played.
If, in the decisive game, a tie also occurs, then, depending on the stage of the playoffs, an additional game is played between players of a specific slot.
In the round of 16 - 4th slot;
In the quarterfinals - 3rd slot;
In the semifinals - 2nd slot;
In the final - 1st slot.

But that's a bit of an extreme solution, in my opinion.
And overall, it's much better suited for teams of 3 players.

I repeat my question:

Would you rather tell me if there are any plans for the next "One for All"?

I have an idea to hold a team tournament on HotA, preferably scheduling them at different times.

I think that if the regulations are being discussed, then the tournament is also planned to start soon. As far as I know, the organizers will be skd and Sanin.

If we launch the Autumn War in October and open registration for the Heroes of Might and Magic tournament in mid-November, starting it in early December, everything will work out well. Moreover, Vik's tournament concept for Heroes of Might and Magic is quite interesting and can be further developed. Regarding the organization, we have different opinions. It seems my ideas aren't very popular, especially the comments like: "Wouldn't you be embarrassed to calculate the rating of all participants?" If I suggest something, it probably means I'm not embarrassed to do it. As for how it was done before, I only needed the final of the previous Autumn War. But I'm ready to help in any case, with draw tables, etc., regardless of the regulations.

If you launch the Autumn Zone Wars (OzV) in October and open registration for the Heroes of Might and Magic (HotA) tournament in mid-November, starting it in early December, everything will work out well.

2 months is not a significant difference for two similar tournaments. Therefore, if you decide to run OzV now, it would be better to start the HotA team tournament in the spring, after the group stage of OzV is finished.

And conversely, if you're not ready to do it now, then I will run it.

Only 3 people per team and only Bo1 matches. Choosing captains by vote is better than assigning them based on rating, because neither Kober nor I will throw the match (we wouldn't want to!), but others might. Choosing players through a draft is fine, and having 3 templates to choose from is also fine.

Anyone who thinks 4 is better than 3 should immediately suggest what to do in the playoffs if the score is tied 2:2 in the decisive game.

From the organizers' point of view, 3 is preferable – the tournament is better structured.
From the players' point of view, 4 – the inevitable difference in skill is leveled out by the brackets + more people can participate.

But in the playoffs, you could play like in the Davis Cup, 5 matches, but in a different order – pairs within their own brackets and 2 on 2, which is played if necessary.

Pros: 2 on 2 with random Castles – this hasn't really been done before (by the way, there's nothing wrong with random Castles, you just need to approach restarts differently).
One replay instead of 4 games.

Cons: Some of the captains may not be fans of 2x2, but this will become clear when discussing the proposal, but it is quite possible to take this moment into account when picking players.

And in general – the tournament is a team event, and 2 on 2 is the embodiment of teamwork, and I think fans will like it more

Let's have 5 players!

Let's have 5 players!

Let's keep it simple. We'll divide all the players into 2 teams and have the final right away.

from the organizers' point of view, 3 is preferable – the tournament is better structured.
from the players' point of view, 4 is better – the inevitable skill difference is leveled out by the brackets, and more people can participate.

but at the same time, in the playoffs, it could be played like in the Davis Cup – 5 matches, but in a different order – pairs within their own brackets, and 2 vs. 2, which is played if necessary.

pros: 2 vs. 2 with random castles – this hasn't really been done before (by the way, there's nothing wrong with random castles; you just need to approach restarts differently).
one replay instead of 4 games.

cons: some of the captains may not be fans of 2 vs. 2, but this will become clear when discussing the proposal, and it is quite possible to take this into account when picking players.

and in general – the tournament is a team event, and 2 vs. 2 is the embodiment of team play, and I think it would be more fun.

Yeah, and you could also add HL+U in the 8th edition, and there would be even more fun.

The problem with OZ4 was the motivation of some players to even participate in this tournament. As a result, some games were not played, and technical results were recorded. I highly doubt that the players' motivation will increase, especially those who realized the lack of prospects for their team during the draft stage. Therefore, I would like to emphasize that balancing the teams in terms of composition is important, and it is also important to find replacements for them during the tournament. To form the most balanced teams, an even number of tiers is ideal. In a team with 3 tiers, teams with the strongest captains have an advantage in the 1st and 3rd tiers and a weaker 2nd tier, meaning they have an advantage in two tiers compared to one tier for teams with weaker captains. We can also look at the situation from the perspective of the last captain. First, who could it be? In the previous tournament, more than 80 participants registered, which means that with 3 tiers, there will be at least 27 teams or 27 captains. Also, in OZ4, during the voting stage, I assigned random positions for places above 15; now, I have no idea who will be among the last captains. And so, let's say jaris becomes a captain. With all due respect to whoever he is, he is unlikely to be able to compete with the top 10-15 players, receives a strong second tier, and a weak third tier. That is, he almost certainly has fewer chances. And not just him as a captain, but the entire team. And there will be about 10 such teams. And how does this affect the competitive aspect and the players' motivation? This is if we keep the team draft procedure the same. The situation could be improved by introducing restrictions such as a total rating of no more than 5000. But I am not a supporter of using rating as a determining factor. Some of the reasons have been mentioned above: 1) The possibility of manipulating the rating. 2) It should be understood that the rating and the player's skill may not correlate for various reasons: a) Different motivations for increasing the rating. For example, it is generally more interesting for beginners, as can be seen in the examples of some of the current top-rated players. b) Different compositions of opponents. c) A player with 0 games and an absolute beginner has a starting rating of 1500 and will almost certainly lose to, say, maradjana with a rating of 1400. I believe that if we rely on the rating, the range boundaries should be very vague. And if we are talking about it, then the tournament rating seems more interesting in this regard: http://heroes3stat.tk/tournament_rating/ Having an even number of rounds is a direct consequence of putting the teams in equal conditions in terms of choosing colors and maps. We can switch to Bo1 or within the framework of trading maps or within the framework of a full random (the same Bishop system). But in the case of Bo2, the number of draws is not large (only 2 draws in the playoffs in OZ4), and, I note, both draws involved teams in which 1 player did not play. There is a high probability that with the replacement of players, there would be no draws at all! And I do not see any significant drawbacks in having an ace match. The tournament will take place over 10 months, and will it make a big difference if it takes 11 months?