The Possibility Of Going Swiss

[LiteralGrill]

In my thread discussing what the 3DS competitive scene needs to thrive, it was mentioned by AlphaZealot that with everyone having a system, the normal setup limitations that normally work against using a Swiss System don't apply.

However, just saying we will use a Swiss System is not that easy. There are actually many things to consider before adopting the system, which I will bring up below for debate. These won't likely be easy decisions to make, so I want to start the debate early and get people's ideas so we can have an established format and possibly have hand crafted tournament software specifically made to use in this format for Smashbros 3DS (I might be able to manage something like that free to use.)

Here are the major points I want to address.

1. What style of the Swiss System should we use?
2. How do we determine tie breakers? (This ties in at times with number one for those studied in the systems.)
3. Do we ONLY use a Swiss System, or do we use it for Pools then seed a bracket from a certain level of players?


I will be describing some seriously complex things at times during the thread, I know people don't enjoy walls of text, so I will do my best to add TL:DRs when I can, just PLEASE if you take a stance be ready to defend it. Do not just look at the TLDR and assume you now know everything on the subject.

With that said, let us address number one: What style of the Swiss System should we use?

After TONS of research, I will list some of the major systems that are the most common and the pros and cons associated with each system.

Standard Swiss:

This is the Swiss System that most people have ran into. The first round is either decided at random, or by using seeding (which I assume would be the preferred method). All players then proceed to the next round, where winners face winners, losers face losers, and so on. In each round, players faces opponents with the same, or almost the same score. Players in each round are ranked. Then, the top half is paired with the bottom half. Throughout this, no player is paired against each other twice.

Danish "Luton" System.

This operates exactly as Standard Swiss, WITHOUT the rule that no players can meet twice. This can allow the VERY top players to have a better chance to face each other, though you may get the same opponent multiple times which can be boring.

Bridge System:

In bridge, generally a Standard Swiss system is used until near the end of the tournament, then it switches into Danish so that the top two teams could play against each other regardless on if they have faced each other previously.

These three systems are the most related, which is why I have mentioned them. The next method are more complex, however are worth looking at for the pros and cons they have.

Accelerated Swiss:

[collapse="Accelerated Swiss From Wikipedia"]
Accelerated pairings

The method of accelerated pairings also known as accelerated Swissis used in some large tournaments with more than the optimal number of players for the number of rounds. This method pairs top players more quickly than the standard method in the opening roundsand has the effect of reducing the number of players with perfect scores more rapidly (by approximately a factor of 2 after two rounds).
For the first two rounds, players who started in the top half have one point added to their score for pairing purposes only. Then the first two rounds are paired normally, taking this added score into account. In effect, in the first round the top quarter plays the second quarter and the third quarter plays the fourth quarter. Most of the players in the first and third quarters should win the first round. Assuming this is approximately the case, in effect for the second round the top eighth plays the second eighth, the second quarter plays the third quarter and the seventh eighth plays the bottom eighth. That is, in the second round, winners in the top half play each other, losers in the bottom half play each other, and losers in the top half play winners in the bottom half (for the most part). After two rounds, about ⅛ of the players will have a perfect score, instead of ¼. After the second round, the standard pairing method is used (without the added point for the players who started in the top half).[/collapse]

Along with this as it is related slightly to the Accelerated Swiss System is the McMahon system, which is the system used in most European and American Go tournaments, and has been very successful there. (And also is used by several large organizations which is good to note.)


[collapse="McMahon System From Wikipedia"]
Like a Swiss tournament, all players compete in the same number of rounds against various other players. Unlike Swiss, the players do not all start with zero points, but are awarded initial points based on their rating prior to the tournament. The system features an "upper bar", set to a specific rating, so that all players that are considered to have a chance to win the tournament start with the same (maximum) number of points.
Players are paired each round against an opponent that has an equal or almost equal number of points so far, and gain a point for each round they win or half a point for a draw. The player with the highest number of points after the last round is the tournament winner, with various tie-breaking systems.

The advantage of the McMahon system over the Swiss system is that it requires fewer rounds to find a winner, and that it avoids extreme match-ups (very strong players against very weak players) in the earlier rounds. By matching up possible tournament winners earlier, the system allows for more games amongst this group, and thus improves sampling.[/collapse]

Now, I have written an entire Pro's and Cons section about accelerated and McMahon systems, TLDR: there's a bunch to think about if you use them.

Pros and Cons:

[collapse="Pros and Cons"]
Pros
a) The major benefit of using an accelerated Swiss system is that it protects the strong players from having to play weak players in the first round or so; a game between a top player and a random newbie is just a waste of time (for the top player anyways) and hurts the strong players SoS. All games tend to be more evenly matched and therefore more interesting.
b) By effectively providing extra (virtual) rounds, an accelerated Swiss gives more accurate placings at the end of the tournament, particularly when the number of rounds is small compared with the number of players (for example more that 64 players with 6 rounds; and at the other extreme it is used for 1 day tournaments with as few as 3 rounds).
c) If the number of players is large, a McMahon with a top section of 2^n players and n rounds (eg 32 players 5 rounds) is guaranteed to produce a unique winner (though not lower placings).
d) As compared with an event running a number of separate divisions there are fewer byes, in fact there will be byes only if the total number of players is odd. This is a major considerations for players who travel long distances to attend an event only to find they do not play a full complement of games.
e) There is more interest for players at the boundaries of the sections, than if they were playing in completely separate Divisions – bottom players in section A get a chance to win a game, top players in section B get to play stronger players (but see Con’s below).
g) Administration of the tournament is much easier for the Tournament Director to run a single combined tournament rather than 2 separate events (or more – all our tournaments run at least an Open and a Handicap Divisions, some currently have 2 Open Divisions). Just one draw is made per round, entry of results is simplified, and registration is a lot quicker. It is also easy to move players between sections if necessary, something you may have to do at short notice when fewer players turn up than expected!


Cons
a) Some players will feel aggrieved when they are paired with a player outside their section, particularly until they understand how a McMahon works.
A top section player paired with a lower section player (especially if this happens because of an odd number of players in the section rather than as a result of losing games) will lose out on SoS even more than in a usual Swiss because of the acceleration step, thereby hurting their chance of winning the tournament
b) If different playing conditions apply to groups of players (for example different number of rounds) then you cannot use a McMahon.
c) It is close to impossible in a McMahon system for a player who is not seeded in the top group to win. Sometimes, upsets happen as we know in tournaments which creates much hype or makes us realize we undervalued a player. While a lower play CAN still manage to get to the top, it is MUCH more difficult in a McMahon system.[/collapse]

Alright, the final system: The Amalfi System. This is the least common system know, but is often used in Italy and does have some advantages, specifically they have a closer to "grand finals" kind of matches.

[collapse=Amalfi System From Wikipedia]
A tournament system in Italy. It is similar to the Swiss System, but doesn't split players based on their score. Before pairing any round, players are listed for decreasing score / decreasing rating, and the opponent of the first player in the list is the player following him by a number of positions equal to the number of remaining rounds, and so on for the other players. As consequence of this, the difference in rating between opponents at the first round is not so big (as for the accelerated systems), and ideally the "big match" between the first and the second one should occur at the last round, no matter how many players and rounds are in the tournament.
[/collapse]

One major con I can mention is that Amalfi systems do not have many common computer programs written for them (I only found one that was kinda subpar) This is due to it not being as common. However as we will discuss later, if we were to go ONLY Swiss, this could help with hype loss that can occur within Swiss brackets.


Tie Breakers:

Tie Breakers can be a very interesting thing in Swiss tournaments, there are many methods that are used, if you are really interested in them, and would like a further definition of what the suggestion I have below is Wikipedia Is Your Friend.

My suggestion would be to follow the method used by the U.S. Chess Federation as it has been tried and used many times with good success.

You do these methods in order.

1. Modified Median
2. Solkhoff
3. Cumulative
4. Cumulative Opponent's Score

This would be necessary to discuss, this is not an official USCF thing, but on the off chance ALL of these tie, we must have a method.
5. Coin Flip (I figure people will HATE this, though some places use this method so it should be mentioned.)
5. Tie Breaker Fight (A simple fight where the winner moves on.)

If a system other then a more standard Swiss is chosen, tie breaking methods may need to be evaluated to better choose one that fits. This should be kept in mind.


Swiss: Full Time of Pools?

This one has just some pros and cons, I have a feeling this may be the largest point of discussion for people. As I do not want to skew discussion about the subject by writing my own list of pros and cons, I would like to mention a few major talking points.

1. Do Swiss Tournaments Kill The Hype Factor Too Much? (If so, how might we fix that? Amalfi?)
2. Should Swiss Be Used Just For Pools For Better Seeding Then Have A Top Double Elim Tournament?
3. Swiss Cheese Is Delicious, This Idea Is Full Of Holes, etc. (ie: All the Swiss jokes you'll more then likely come up with)

THAT'S IT PEOPLE! I GAVE YOU TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONS OF INFORMATION! NOW DISCUSS!!!!!!​

 

[LiteralGrill]

Alright, I wanted to come back with a bit more info that wouldn't fit well into the OP.

To start, I was running a ranked system for 1v1 in PSASBR for a while before the game died. This program could calculate the likelihood of one player beating another as well, so I took the top 14 players on the list and ran a six round tournament using several formats to find the most accurate results based on their ranks. This data was especially helpful, as it had 2 players with particular potential to move up the rankings, so we have the ability to see what would happen in a situation where someone made some upsets and surprised people, and which one would most accurately allow players to rise and do this.

I tried Swiss Dutch, Standard Swiss, and Amalfi (I found an excellent program for it now) And ffound that Amalfi gave the most accurate results, followed by Standard, then Dutch.

It terms of tie breaking, the most accurate setup seemed to be:
Bucholz Total
Sonneborn Berger
Bucholz Median
Direct Encounter
Won Games
Tie Breaker Fight

I would like to personally propose an adoption of the Amalfi system regardless of wether it is used for pools or not, then following this tie breaking system. I'm open to any thoughts.

 

[mimgrim]

From some one who use to play YGO and has thus played in swiss tournaments before;

A standard Swiss tournament would be the best, HOWEVER, don't just make it a Swiss tourney. The best way to handle this is to have a certain number of rounds in the Swiss style, like say 4, based on the number of rounds the players who won the most rounds, use 3 of the 4 rounds or all 4 rounds, will continue onto the single elimenation part of the tourney. This give everyone more then just 1 chance to play and allows the best there to duke it out. The pairings for the Swiss part would work like you said they work in Stant Swiss where the first round is randomized and then in later rounders players fight off against each other who have the same number of round wins, if a odd number of particpants pops up then each round someone will randomly get a BYE. This allows everyone a chance to participate for more then one round but allows the best there to duke it out in the last rounds. The bracket for the Singl Elim part would be generated randomly also. also rounds would be best 2 our of 3.

The only thing I am confused by is what you mean by Tie Breaking? I presume you mean if they somehow tying each other in a round? Wouldn't that get solved by a Sudden Death match?

I figured I would post since I come from the YGO scene where Swiss Tournaments are very common.

 

[LiteralGrill]

From some one who use to play YGO and has thus played in swiss tournaments before;

A standard Swiss tournament would be the best, HOWEVER, don't just make it a Swiss tourney. The best way to handle this is to have a certain number of rounds in the Swiss style, like say 4, based on the number of rounds the players who won the most rounds, use 3 of the 4 rounds or all 4 rounds, will continue onto the single elimenation part of the tourney. This give everyone more then just 1 chance to play and allows the best there to duke it out. The pairings for the Swiss part would work like you said they work in Stant Swiss where the first round is randomized and then in later rounders players fight off against each other who have the same number of round wins, if a odd number of particpants pops up then each round someone will randomly get a BYE. This allows everyone a chance to participate for more then one round but allows the best there to duke it out in the last rounds. The bracket for the Singl Elim part would be generated randomly also. also rounds would be best 2 our of 3.

The only thing I am confused by is what you mean by Tie Breaking? I presume you mean if they somehow tying each other in a round? Wouldn't that get solved by a Sudden Death match?

I figured I would post since I come from the YGO scene where Swiss Tournaments are very common.

It's nice to have someone with experience post, thanks for replying!

Tie Breaking at the end would probably need after ALL tie breakers were used, a sudden death kinda match. I mean if it can go THAT far, do you wanna lose to a coin flip? (Which some MAJOR events actually use O_O )


Random generation has always been kinda iffy compared to seeding in some sort of manner, you put the top two guys in the first match together and just changed the ENTIRE bracket sometimes, it can be that massive of a quake. I'd like seeding if possible, though that is a personal preference from TOing a bunch.

And I also admit, I just don't care for single elim. There's SO many times it innacurately spits out results, if a double elim can be managed it'd probably be better, and more hyped too. People love a losers bracket person winning it all!

The Amalfi System I mentioned actually within swiss generally pairs the best players against each other for final rounds, and is much more accurate for placing then standard swiss.

 

[mimgrim]

It's nice to have someone with experience post, thanks for replying!

Tie Breaking at the end would probably need after ALL tie breakers were used, a sudden death kinda match. I mean if it can go THAT far, do you wanna lose to a coin flip? (Which some MAJOR events actually use O_O )


Random generation has always been kinda iffy compared to seeding in some sort of manner, you put the top two guys in the first match together and just changed the ENTIRE bracket sometimes, it can be that massive of a quake. I'd like seeding if possible, though that is a personal preference from TOing a bunch.

And I also admit, I just don't care for single elim. There's SO many times it innacurately spits out results, if a double elim can be managed it'd probably be better, and more hyped too. People love a losers bracket person winning it all!

The Amalfi System I mentioned actually within swiss generally pairs the best players against each other for final rounds, and is much more accurate for placing then standard swiss.

Seeding is possible actually, but it's tougher to do in the smaller tournies. But let me take a YCS for example, this is one of the biggest tournies in the YGO scene and has like 8 or more rounds to it with generally 100+ people. Seeds for the Single Elim part would then be done by pairing up the person who did the best in the Swiss round with the person who passed the Swiss round but did the worse out of the ones who passed. Then you match up 2nd best and 2n worst and so on and so forth till the two in middle meet each other.

I never played a Double Elim before unfourtantly, but don't they require a bigger bracket usually? Even for the YCS of YGO only the top 16 of the Swiss go onto the Single Elim portion. A Double Elim could work if it can be used on a smaller brack, but I never been in one before so I can't comment on it.

I'm still confused what you mean by Tie Breaking.... Do yuo mean when people tie in a single round out of a match? Doesn't the game take care of that itself with a Sudden Death game? In YGO generally decks that are able to tie the opponents up are banned making Tie Breakers extremly rare, so rare I have never seen one before. So can you clarify on how people would end up tying somehow? As I don't get how that would happen. o.O

 

[LiteralGrill]

Seeding is possible actually, but it's tougher to do in the smaller tournies. But let me take a YCS for example, this is one of the biggest tournies in the YGO scene and has like 8 or more rounds to it with generally 100+ people. Seeds for the Single Elim part would then be done by pairing up the person who did the best in the Swiss round with the person who passed the Swiss round but did the worse out of the ones who passed. Then you match up 2nd best and 2n worst and so on and so forth till the two in middle meet each other.

I never played a Double Elim before unfourtantly, but don't they require a bigger bracket usually? Even for the YCS of YGO only the top 16 of the Swiss go onto the Single Elim portion. A Double Elim could work if it can be used on a smaller brack, but I never been in one before so I can't comment on it.

I'm still confused what you mean by Tie Breaking.... Do yuo mean when people tie in a single round out of a match? Doesn't the game take care of that itself with a Sudden Death game? In YGO generally decks that are able to tie the opponents up are banned making Tie Breakers extremly rare, so rare I have never seen one before. So can you clarify on how people would end up tying somehow? As I don't get how that would happen. o.O

I mean the results in total. Swiss has the advantage in Smash that if there were timeouts, the matches COULD actually be a draw and count as half points (never mentioned that, forgot too) but sometimes, there is a tie in the results at the end of a swiss bracket, these have to be decided by data taken from the tournament or by playing a tie breaking match. (Usually the data is used first as it is fairly accurate).

Double elim DOES take more time, but is the smash standard for most events as of now, and the time is honestly worth it for the hype and the better accuracy. We've had 64 man + double elim events in the past, so it can work good enough. And if we use Swiss in any way, keeping SOME stuff people are comfortable with is nice.

And you can seed a swiss bracket before the event just like any other bracket too if you want to.

 

[mimgrim]

I mean the results in total. Swiss has the advantage in Smash that if there were timeouts, the matches COULD actually be a draw and count as half points (never mentioned that, forgot too) but sometimes, there is a tie in the results at the end of a swiss bracket, these have to be decided by data taken from the tournament or by playing a tie breaking match. (Usually the data is used first as it is fairly accurate).

Double elim DOES take more time, but is the smash standard for most events as of now, and the time is honestly worth it for the hype and the better accuracy. We've had 64 man + double elim events in the past, so it can work good enough. And if we use Swiss in any way, keeping SOME stuff people are comfortable with is nice.

And you can seed a swiss bracket before the event just like any other bracket too if you want to.

Hrmm the best then would be a 3 minuete 1 stock battle to deicde the Tire Breaker I would think.

Taking more time shouldn't be the issue, if a Double Elim can work with a smaller bracket then by all means use it. I can't offer anything more then that becuase I have never played Double Elim before as Single Elim is what Ygo does after the Swiss Rounds.

You could, but I wouldn't recomend it. Having Swiss rounds not random, aside from round 2+ in which you have to do a tiny bit of seeding with the randomizing, generated could create a unfair atmosphere and are better left random for the most part (I ofc don't mean having people who win X amount of rounds having the chasce to go against someone who has won a different amount of rounds).

 

[LiteralGrill]

Hrmm the best then would be a 3 minuete 1 stock battle to deicde the Tire Breaker I would think.

Taking more time shouldn't be the issue, if a Double Elim can work with a smaller bracket then by all means use it. I can't offer anything more then that because I have never played Double Elim before as Single Elim is what Ygo does after the Swiss Rounds.

You could, but I wouldn't recomend it. Having Swiss rounds not random, aside from round 2+ in which you have to do a tiny bit of seeding with the randomizing, generated could create a unfair atmosphere and are better left random for the most part (I ofc don't mean having people who win X amount of rounds having the chance to go against someone who has won a different amount of rounds).

The system we've had now has had seeding in it for a long time, and I'm not a "because we always have" kind of person, but the chances of pitting people together right away that could make me place in the money or not would get me a bit mad and such, and I wouldn't be too surprised if that was how it is for other people. Seeded Swiss is used in tons of competitive boardgames and even some sports (From Badminton to Scrabble) to wide success without too many issues, though I do understand that people don't always like seeding. It'd be a major reason I don't wanna touch a McMahon system that is even MORE investigatory but I had to mention it for its common use.

Edit: I realized I put down McMahon a bit more then I should, it could have an advantage of offering prizes for placements in various spots, making more people possibly wanna come since they have a better chance at prizes. This is VERY popular in Go communities.

 

[Dooms]

The thing with the 3DS version is that the normal time constraints are pretty much not there due to everyone having a system. Using the tournament standard (Double Elim tournament), all of the first rounds would be able to play their matches right away as opposed to a regular tournament, where people would have to wait for their matches. This means that we can honestly do whatever we want with these tournaments. 3 rounds of Swiss into a small-medium bracket sounds pretty great honestly, and it would probably work out well enough considering all of the time lost in standard tournaments due to lack of TV's.

How exactly will the points work? I'm assuming they'll be awarded based on the amount of games won? We can try to actually find a way to throw in percentage and stocks as well into the point tally. If we did that, the amount of ties would be really small, and it would reward a player for getting close to beating someone as well (Getting someone to last stock high percents would give you more points than two stocking someone). If we figure out a really successful way to calculate points from a swiss format, then ties will be near impossible. I'm assuming we want to reward people in this order:

Set > Game > Stocks > Percent

Right? So with me totally BSing points here, I'd assume that it would go something like this:

-----------

~Note that for this example, a set is 3 matches (not best 2/3). Having a best two out of three in this sample would give an advantage to winners with close matches when compared to winners that sweep their opponents.

Set is worth 10 points. The winner gets 10 points for winning a set.

A game is worth 3 points. Each player gets rewarded 3 points for how many games they take off of their opponent.

A stock is worth 0.5 points. Each player gets rewarded 0.5 points for each stock they take from their opponent.

A percentage is worth 0.001 points. Percentage points are rewarded based on what percent your opponent is at when you lose a match.

For an example, say I was playing Capps, and our set went like this.

Capps beats me with 2 stocks left. His percent when I die is 58%
I beat him with 1 stock left. My percent when he dies is 94%
I beat him with 1 stock left. My percent when he dies is 163%

I won the set, so I get 10 points.

I won two games, so I get 6 points. He won one, so he gets 3 points.

We both took seven stocks, so we both get 3.5 points.

I get 0.058 points from the one game I lost where Capps had 58% left, while Capps gets .257 (.163 + .094) for both matches that he lost.

I end up with 19.558 points while Capps ends up with 6.757.

------------

Yeah, the numbers in this example are really crappy, but the idea behind it is that while we need to have a clear distinction between winners of sets, we also need to reward players for taking games and stocks off of their opponent or for getting them to a high percentage.

If we do something along these lines, the chance of a tie is near impossible. But if it were to actually happen, the normal way that ties work in pools or anything similar when it comes to smash is something along the lines of Set Wins > Match Wins > Head to Head. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's how it's usually prioritized. Anyways, if the set wins are tied, the match wins are tied, and they haven't played a head to head yet, then the obvious answer would be to make them play in a head to head match to see who wins.

I really like the McMahon idea if we make the points you start out with really small so that it doesn't actually effect/affect (grammar why?) the results. It's a great way to get the top players playing against eachother so that they don't get free wins against newbies.

I really like that we're discussing this now so that we can have a tournament standard by the time the game is released. :D. Way to be a community leader, Capps!

 

[LiteralGrill]

The thing with the 3DS version is that the normal time constraints are pretty much not there due to everyone having a system. Using the tournament standard (Double Elim tournament), all of the first rounds would be able to play their matches right away as opposed to a regular tournament, where people would have to wait for their matches. This means that we can honestly do whatever we want with these tournaments. 3 rounds of Swiss into a small-medium bracket sounds pretty great honestly, and it would probably work out well enough considering all of the time lost in standard tournaments due to lack of TV's.

This is VERY true, time constraints we may have previously had are finally gone thanks to the 3DS! If we were to use a swiss into brackets method, where we let the rest of the players use Swiss to get to play more games, I recommend the Amalfi system: it gets the best of the best near the top after a decent amount of rounds, and seems to be the most accurate after all my testing. I even found a free program that can run it on any operating system: how nice is that?

How exactly will the points work? I'm assuming they'll be awarded based on the amount of games won? We can try to actually find a way to throw in percentage and stocks as well into the point tally. If we did that, the amount of ties would be really small, and it would reward a player for getting close to beating someone as well (Getting someone to last stock high percents would give you more points than two stocking someone). If we figure out a really successful way to calculate points from a swiss format, then ties will be near impossible. I'm assuming we want to reward people in this order:

Set > Game > Stocks > Percent

Right? So with me totally BSing points here, I'd assume that it would go something like this:

-----------

~Note that for this example, a set is 3 matches (not best 2/3). Having a best two out of three in this sample would give an advantage to winners with close matches when compared to winners that sweep their opponents.

Set is worth 10 points. The winner gets 10 points for winning a set.

A game is worth 3 points. Each player gets rewarded 3 points for how many games they take off of their opponent.

A stock is worth 0.5 points. Each player gets rewarded 0.5 points for each stock they take from their opponent.

A percentage is worth 0.001 points. Percentage points are rewarded based on what percent your opponent is at when you lose a match.

For an example, say I was playing Capps, and our set went like this.

Capps beats me with 2 stocks left. His percent when I die is 58%
I beat him with 1 stock left. My percent when he dies is 94%
I beat him with 1 stock left. My percent when he dies is 163%

I won the set, so I get 10 points.

I won two games, so I get 6 points. He won one, so he gets 3 points.

We both took seven stocks, so we both get 3.5 points.

I get 0.058 points from the one game I lost where Capps had 58% left, while Capps gets .257 (.163 + .094) for both matches that he lost.

I end up with 19.558 points while Capps ends up with 6.757.

------------

Yeah, the numbers in this example are really crappy, but the idea behind it is that while we need to have a clear distinction between winners of sets, we also need to reward players for taking games and stocks off of their opponent or for getting them to a high percentage.

If we do something along these lines, the chance of a tie is near impossible. But if it were to actually happen, the normal way that ties work in pools or anything similar when it comes to smash is something along the lines of Set Wins > Match Wins > Head to Head. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's how it's usually prioritized. Anyways, if the set wins are tied, the match wins are tied, and they haven't played a head to head yet, then the obvious answer would be to make them play in a head to head match to see who wins.

You just pointed out many amazing advantages Swiss brings! If we were to actually go so far as to use it only, timeouts would no longer present a major issue in rulesets. Timeouts could easily run as ties and be calculated under any Swiss system on top off creating a point system as you described. We'd all have to sit down and refine the system till it shined for sure though, which wouldn't be too difficult.

I really like the McMahon idea if we make the points you start out with really small so that it doesn't actually effect/affect (grammar why?) the results. It's a great way to get the top players playing against eachother so that they don't get free wins against newbies.

I really like that we're discussing this now so that we can have a tournament standard by the time the game is released. :D. Way to be a community leader, Capps!

Thanks! I figured it's better to discuss now and have a solid plan then to rush it last minute!

Now, McMahon could seriously provide something the smash scene could really benefit from. How many people want to pay money and travel to a tournament they know they have no chance of winning in?

It's harsh, but I'm not dumb enough to go to Apex and get out of pools if I'm lucky, and most players don't want to throw away money at something like that either which has been a hard thing for smash for years. Playing good competition gets us all better, but it costs too much sometimes to do so till you hit a very high level.

McMahon could allow us to split prize pools per division as it does with Go tournaments. This would be HUGE for starting players or people on the fence about putting cash in because they STILL HAVE A CHANCE TO WIN MONEY! The only possible downside would be smaller pots for winning, but if the scene got crazy huge because we could consistently get and keep new players that would fix itself with time.

McMahon and Amalfi have incredible potential, in all honesty I believe those systems deserve the most attention at this point.

 

[SmasherP82]

half of this stuff is kind of jacking my mind X_x ( I'm 13 so my mind gets confused) but could I be explained to it in a way I could understand it should I look over it again and see if I understand. I already said I would do competitive play for 3ds smash bros on 2 of your other threads so might as well try it.

 

[BaPr]

Haha I had the same problem too. Pretty confusing, but well written, so I don't think he would need to dumb it down. Just read it again untill you get it (only the parts you don't understand). That's what I'm doing and it makes more sense when I read it more.

 

[SmasherP82]

Haha I had the same problem too. Pretty confusing, but well written, so I don't think he would need to dumb it down. Just read it again untill you get it (only the parts you don't understand). That's what I'm doing and it makes more sense when I read it more.

I'm just looking over parts I don't get so I can get the "processing" to understand xD

 

[LiteralGrill]

Haha I had the same problem too. Pretty confusing, but well written, so I don't think he would need to dumb it down. Just read it again untill you get it (only the parts you don't understand). That's what I'm doing and it makes more sense when I read it more.

I'm just looking over parts I don't get so I can get the "processing" to understand xD

I'm subscribed to the thread but not getting notifications, come on smashboards!!

If you guys have questions, ask and I'll answer the best I can!

 

[SmasherP82]

I DO have question though I've looked back....but I still don't get it >.<???????

 

[LiteralGrill]

I DO have question though I've looked back....but I still don't get it >.<???????

Ask away! What do you need to know? :D

 

[SmasherP82]

Ask away! What do you need to know? :D

Well I kind of get it know looking at Masquerains long text of IMPORTANT stuff xD, all I really need to go over is the point system, I'm fine with Tie Breakers now thx to Wikipedia being my friend but all I need to know is the point system im still confused about that part kinda

 

[LiteralGrill]

Well I kind of get it know looking at Masquerains long text of IMPORTANT stuff xD, all I really need to go over is the point system, I'm fine with Tie Breakers now thx to Wikipedia being my friend but all I need to know is the point system im still confused about that part kinda

You could (you don't have to) implement a system where wins were worth so many points (1 for example) and ties were worth so much (.5 for example) and use those for deciding winners if needed.

 

[SmasherP82]

You could (you don't have to) implement a system where wins were worth so many points (1 for example) and ties were worth so much (.5 for example) and use those for deciding winners if needed.

hmmm Ok ooooookkkkkk I get it now o: now I guess I'll see what I can do with all this stuff for Melee (maybe) but for now just gonna sit here and let time fly by so this game can come out!

 

[LiteralGrill]

hmmm Ok ooooookkkkkk I get it now o: now I guess I'll see what I can do with all this stuff for Melee (maybe) but for now just gonna sit here and let time fly by so this game can come out!

Good luck with trying Swiss in Melee, it takes a TON of setups to do Swiss. But for 3DS everyone owns a setup already and can bring it, it's why we should think about adopting the system here

 

[SmasherP82]

Good luck with trying Swiss in Melee, it takes a TON of setups to do Swiss. But for 3DS everyone owns a setup already and can bring it, it's why we should think about adopting the system here

I can tell it'd be hard to set a swiss in xD But thats the good thing for the 3DS everyone owns a setup which is great and can just bring it with no problem really, adopting the system that's some cool stuff ;D

 

[LiteralGrill]

I can tell it'd be hard to set a swiss in xD But thats the good thing for the 3DS everyone owns a setup which is great and can just bring it with no problem really, adopting the system that's some cool stuff ;D

I'm glad you like it! It's a rare opportunity that Smash 3DS has, and I wanted to jump on it!

 

[Aidebit]

I like Swiss, it creates much more matches that are more even.

 

[LiteralGrill]

From what I am seeing from our beginnings here, Swiss for 3DS events is a given.

The major question worth discussing now is how we do scoring, and whether or not we want to go all Swiss, or have winners double elimination brackets. What would everyone's thoughts be?

 

[BaPr]

Can anyone explain to me the difference between a tournament and a tourney?
Also, not sure how the 3DS works exactly, but if we have a bunch of 3DS's in one room connecting to other 3DS's, couldn't there be some interference between them? Kinda how multiple wireless controls do the same.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Can anyone explain to me the difference between a tournament and a tourney?
Also, not sure how the 3DS works exactly, but if we have a bunch of 3DS's in one room connecting to other 3DS's, couldn't there be some interference between them? Kinda how multiple wireless controls do the same.

I think the difference is one is a shortened version of the word and that is it.

And there is the possibility of interference, we can hope for the possibility of a connectable version via cord but I dunno on that. We wouldn't know if it was undoable until we tried.

 

[SmasherP82]

I think the difference is one is a shortened version of the word and that is it.

And there is the possibility of interference, we can hope for the possibility of a connectable version via cord but I dunno on that. We wouldn't know if it was undoable until we tried.

well me and my brother are both gettin 3DS version.......But I do wonder how the local multiplayer will work hope it doesn't lag but we'll see o:

 

[Ghostbone]

Main problem with Swiss for current smash tournaments is how so many more rounds are played in a swiss tournament than double elim, so with a limited number of TVs, this can become a serious issue.

Since with the 3DS version, that's a non-issue, I see no reason not to run Swiss tournaments for the game.
I think standard swiss is the best tbh, which would be what most locals would use

Nationals could have pools with standard swiss into a top 16 double elim bracket or something, since you want hype for the finals rather than everyone continuing to play their own tournament matches, lol.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Main problem with Swiss for current smash tournaments is how so many more rounds are played in a swiss tournament than double elim, so with a limited number of TVs, this can become a serious issue.

Since with the 3DS version, that's a non-issue, I see no reason not to run Swiss tournaments for the game.
I think standard swiss is the best tbh, which would be what most locals would use

Nationals could have pools with standard swiss into a top 16 double elim bracket or something, since you want hype for the finals rather than everyone continuing to play their own tournament matches, lol.

I would agree, though if you did want to go just Swiss, an Amalfi format brings you very close to the idea of a Grand Final format if you use it. It'd be up to TOs as always on this one.

 

[BaPr]

I like cheese, so I am perfectly fine with going swiss.

 

[SmasherP82]

I like cheese but I never tried Swiss cheese

 

[LiteralGrill]

Figured I'd get this on the front page for further discussion, as this may be a very important part of our tournaments.

Since writing the OP I've done more study with old data I held for tournaments in PSASBR and it really does seem like the Amalfi System gives out the best results whether using it for Swiis only, or using it to form a bracket for the top players to go through.

 

[SmasherP82]

Figured I'd get this on the front page for further discussion, as this may be a very important part of our tournaments.

Since writing the OP I've done more study with old data I held for tournaments in PSASBR and it really does seem like the Amalfi System gives out the best results whether using it for Swiis only, or using it to form a bracket for the top players to go through.

lawl do you know I freakin wrote that whole entire OP down. In fact in my droor but anyway I've always done/did tournaments in brackets

 

[Substitution]

I think the McMahon system would work best, but that's just me...

 

[Xykness]

I'm so glad this thread has started! We need to establish this kind of stuff sooner rather than later if we have any hopes of there being a 3DS Smash competitive scene! For that, I applaud all who take part in this thread! I will be sure to input soon!

 

[Dooms]

I'm bumping this for the simple fact that I am an avid supporter of this and any tournament I host with the 3DS will be held like this.

Anyone have any cons to this format?

 

[Yikarur]

My first thought about 3DS Tournaments was the possibility of doing swiss.
I'm a ygo player and every tournament is standard swiss with top cut style.

I definitely would try this. The tiebreaker in ygo is XXYYYZZZ
XX = Number of Points (Win = 3 points)
YYY = Opponents win percentages
ZZZ = Opponent's opponent win percentages

What kind of tie breaker do other games use?

 

[BBG|Scott-Spain]

Honestly, they all should be attempted at one point or another. It's more a matter of resources to organize it.

Also, let's examine the purpose of doing Swiss, which is mostly to give lesser players more experience and maximizing the value of tournament attendance.