So I was thinking, after 6 unavoidable tournaments, that we can extend those to teams. But how?

I mean players do not need to accept the tournament or not, it is unavoidable, the point is to make balanced teams otherwise the result is obvious.

An idea is to pair the top player (e.g. t800) with the lower player of the spectrum (let's say the one that has 1400+ points that is closer to 1400) but it is not really, how can I say, interesting.

In the unavoidable tournaments the assumption is that each player tries to win as much as possible, and it seems quite likely, with a team it is the same for the single players but then there are problems of activity, interested and so on that may be different for the elements of the team.

In terms of team vs team fights it is realtively easy: one considers only the direct fights between players of the two teams, so we have , for teams of size 2, players A1 and A2 and players B1 and B2.

The direct fights are considered like in the unavoidable tournament, for every map, between A1 vs B1, A1 vs B2, A2 vs B1, A2 vs B2.

Then the total tournament score (remember that the score assigns 3 points for each map) on each map between two players is added. So for example A1 vs B1, we have A1 wins 3-0 circle of death, A1 wins 3-0 barred spiral, A1 draws on meeting point 1.5 - 1.5 , B1 wins on set your priority (3-0), B1 wins on seven wonders (3-0) . So the total match A1 vs B1 is 7.5 - 7.5 , or, assigning 1 point for victory, 0.5 for draw and 0 for defeat (so normalizing). A1 vs B1 0.5 - 0.5

So in practice every fight "player team A vs player team B" assigns 1 point. So a fight between teams can end up maximum 4-0 with teams of size 2.

But how do we decide a team? I'm not settled on this.

We can even say "every top10 players pick 2 other players" but in this case (a) the order of selection counts and (b) not all the top10 players are active on the forum.

link attempt2: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=627

I mean players do not need to accept the tournament or not, it is unavoidable, the point is to make balanced teams otherwise the result is obvious.

An idea is to pair the top player (e.g. t800) with the lower player of the spectrum (let's say the one that has 1400+ points that is closer to 1400) but it is not really, how can I say, interesting.

In the unavoidable tournaments the assumption is that each player tries to win as much as possible, and it seems quite likely, with a team it is the same for the single players but then there are problems of activity, interested and so on that may be different for the elements of the team.

In terms of team vs team fights it is realtively easy: one considers only the direct fights between players of the two teams, so we have , for teams of size 2, players A1 and A2 and players B1 and B2.

The direct fights are considered like in the unavoidable tournament, for every map, between A1 vs B1, A1 vs B2, A2 vs B1, A2 vs B2.

Then the total tournament score (remember that the score assigns 3 points for each map) on each map between two players is added. So for example A1 vs B1, we have A1 wins 3-0 circle of death, A1 wins 3-0 barred spiral, A1 draws on meeting point 1.5 - 1.5 , B1 wins on set your priority (3-0), B1 wins on seven wonders (3-0) . So the total match A1 vs B1 is 7.5 - 7.5 , or, assigning 1 point for victory, 0.5 for draw and 0 for defeat (so normalizing). A1 vs B1 0.5 - 0.5

So in practice every fight "player team A vs player team B" assigns 1 point. So a fight between teams can end up maximum 4-0 with teams of size 2.

But how do we decide a team? I'm not settled on this.

We can even say "every top10 players pick 2 other players" but in this case (a) the order of selection counts and (b) not all the top10 players are active on the forum.

link attempt2: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=627