Running another tournament

I am thinking of running another tournament like the April one.

Just wondering is it better to do 1v1 or 2v2.

Also want to ask if the old Arbitrators group want to arbitrate again? this mean you @_Shaman Parzival Shadowfury333

Prize as last time would be Steam keys kudo and potential Trophy if I can convince Licho

I vote 1v1 as well, last one was 2v2 and it's good to vary it up.

Also, I'd be commentating, so once again I won't be able to be more than a backup arbitrator.

1v1 would be good for variation, but I think I'd enjoy playing/speccing 2v2 more.

Conclusion: Both are fine, bring on the tourneys! And thanks Sortale for the initiative.

What is this whole arbitrary thingy about?

Anarchid
that would be awesome, I'll have to trouble you to make an announcement as well. Thank you in advance.
Failer
my tournament format needs one referee per match, called arbitrator or arbiter.

I doubt that chemical weapons would be very effective against robots.

Sortale
Are you planning to enforce the time limit again? I personally feel it's better to not have a time limit. Occasionally 1v1 games can go to the strider stage and it's quite a treat when they do. By forcing games to end before the 30 minute mark you essentially remove the lategame.

If porcfest stalemates are a concern then hand picking the map pool will go a long way towards avoiding those. Open maps like Comets and Eye of Horus rarely are boring in the lategame.

Having a limit to the game length as a safety valve is good imo. If 30 minutes is too short, then 45 could be a consideration.

quote: Having a limit to the game length as a safety valve is good imo. If 30 minutes is too short, then 45 could be a consideration.

It could be workable and if Sortale wants a time limit I believe 45 minutes would be a reasonable one.

However, it still would significantly alter how the game is played in the later stages.

Let's say I'm at 35 minutes in to the game and attacks with regular units have proven inefficient. Normally I'd eco up, get striders and look to win in the long run. If the game is supposed to end at 45 minutes I probably wouldn't have the time to do that, though. Most striders take a long time to pay off (I guess Dante and Ulti can exceptions). It'd be safer to just start slapping down DDMs and stalling for the next 10 minutes.

I feel like giving incentives to stall for a draw is questionable at a conceptual level and likely to reduce the quality of the games.

That's what was done last time, with the rule being "if one side has 2x the metal value of the other in units, that side wins, otherwise play for 5 more minutes. If after 5 minutes no side has a 2x metal value advantage, it's a draw"

I have no problem with this kind of rule during the Swiss stage, since Swiss has meaningful draws, but during the bracket stage this isn't really workable. We had some ad hoc rules about being a won game for both [*], but ultimately there is no meaningful draw state for brackets.