Hello,

is Steppe Flat 04 also the map for 2vs2 games? While its a nice map for 1vs1, in 2vs2 the hostalliance has a a good hill on their side.

I think swiss system is a very good idea !
Though i don’t understand this(especially the 2nd and 3rd):
«1. No team play more then 1 match outside its own group.
2. It is possible to arrange other matches due to the Swiss system.
3. Team has a the least possible number of points according to tournament situation at that moment.»
Can you explain me it please ?

Oh ok i understood now, thx Garen.

Hello gentlemen,

I have two questions:

1) I just saw that under the tournament table there is a list called «factions used». Why is it used? I thought faction elemination is active per round like stated in rules. So this would mean you play the 3 matches and afterwards its a reset and you can select again the factions you want. So I dont understand the meaning of this list. It wouldnt make any sense anyway because a) 3 games with 2 players makes 6 factions per battle. 4 battles makes 24 factions which is more than there are factions b) Those teams who are granted a forfeit dont use any factions and are in clear advantage over the teams who had to play.

2) I still have a problem with the swiss system. I know the swiss system form chess clubs when you play ongoing ranking games in one group. Its used when you have big groups where all vs all is not working. In this case however the groups consist of 5 teams each, so all vs all within the group would be 4 battles. now the format rule says its 4 battles but only 3 within the group + 1 external. I have the feeling that this could cause some conflict and probably wont show fair result of ranking within the group especially as there seem to be several inactive teams in both groups which could exploit this system even more. Why arent just played all vs all within the group to give a proper result?

Have a nice day

Luc

Well this wasnt clear in rules to be honest. I was under the impression that one round means the 3 battles of Team A vs Team B and the next round will be 3 battles of team A vs team C etc. There was no hint in rules that all the group games will be considered as one round. If we would have known that we would have certainly used other factions than we actually did.

The next problem that comes along with this system are the inactive teams. For insteance: One team plays against the other and uses 6 good factions. Another team from the same group wants to play too but their opponents dont play or are inactive, so they win 3-0. But they havent used any factions at all, so they have 18 factions left to play while their opponents in the group have allready used their best factions. This is a big disadvantage for the team that had to play and use factions because if they play against the other team it has clear faction disadvantage which is clearly exploiting the outcome of the tournament. To make it even worse. Imagine the team that has been inactive vs one other team plays now against some other teams and some not, so they will force some teams to use factions and others not. In the end this system punishes the team that plays the battles and benefits the teams that are granted forfeits.

In my opinion there should be a reset of factions after each matchup to avoid this exploits of the system.

I disagree with that. If you win 3-0 by forfeit its not like you used the 6 weakest factions. You just got the victory without any effort and without any faction used. In case the opposite team would have been active the team would certainly have picked not the 6 weakest factions to win.

Now imagine the following situation:

Team A vs Team B: A wins 3-0 and both teams used best factions
Team C vs Team C wins 3-0 by forfeit and looses no factions at all

Now team D decides to become active again and play against team A and team B (if possible by system) and forces both to use factions. Now team A and team B are both at big disadvantage to team C. The disadvantage becomes even bigger when one team is sometimes inactive and sometimes play. So all teams who have to play against them get punished and those who dont, get awarded. And its becoming even worse when you have more than 1 (partly) inactive team per group.

The two options you posted are no real options: Why should a team that had to play and earn its points by the cost of good factions use bad factions against a team that got full points for no effort? thats indeed the problem of the system, especially then when the inactive team was just inactive vs one opponent. And if you decide to not play and use no factions then the opponent team gets 3 points.

In my opinion there are just 3 fair solutions for the situation:

a) faction reset after each matchup or
b) teams that have been inactive in one matchup get kicked from tourney, results are nullified and factions count as not used. then you can play all vs all within one group with faction elemination active
c) the teams that won by forfeit will get «virtual» used factions. for insteance team A wins by forfeit against team B. Then both teams loose 6 faction which are documanted and cant be used later on. the question is how it is decided which factions are lost. a good idea would be to reset according to faction list from top to down and from left to right those factions which are still available. for insteance: team A and B dont play their first games, so both loose the first 6 factions: england, france, HRE, Spain etc. this way you promote playing the games because the forfeit win will result in erasing better factions as most of them are located in top row. (a solution like this was used for inteance for the old Tournament Central tournament series on RTW)

right now the system is flawed unless all teams play 100% active and all use their factions.

of course I will agree on any decission, I just want to help optimizing the fairness of the current situation