Brackets vs Pools

[Youngling]

Just wanted to hear some thoughts on FC's pool-bracket-pool layout.

Personally, I dont think tourneys should ever go from double elimination bracket back to pool. I'm fine with pools top 8, but either go all pools or single elimination bracket to pools. The whole continuation rule is just iffy in my opinion.

 

[KirbyKaze]

I don't like continuation sets. Just prefer new clean sets. More room for adapting and stuff. Nurgle.

I like pie.

 

[Bones0]

Yeah, I used to be a big proponent of continuation sets, but it doesn't really fit the bill for Melee because of how much changes from game to game, let alone set to set.

Ending in pools/RR ever is just dumb. Do swiss into double elim plzkthx.

 

[DerfMidWest]

i thought the round robin thing was... interesting...
it didn't fail, so props to the kishes for that
but I would never do it and I hope this doesn't become a thing... because its rather silly. just kind of a gimmick to try and get a bunch of hype matches at the end of the tourney, making the top players play a bunch of games with each other, something cool is bound to happen at some point.
double elim bracket all the way is far superior.

 

[Armada]

Fun to try it out but I think haveing a RR between top 8 is not that good.

1: Players will "give up" more often becasue they can't win in the end (I have seen stuff like this in pools too).

2: This is not a good way to give "correct" places either. People that have been loseing a few sets have way less to play for so I think they will play worse then they would in winners/losers bracket. In a DE you still have the chance to win the tournament when you are still in the bracket. If you lose 2 sets in that RR it is close to impossible to win the tournament and you have to play 5 more sets just to take a specific spot.

3: Way less hype then a normal bracket because it can be over before the last set between the two players with the best points (they maybe already have played because they were not seeded to place first and second). A decent example of the "flaws" could have been if Axe would have been beating Hbox at FC and Mango/Hbox played the last set. That way if Hbox would have won the set all would had the same ammount of loses (in sets) and a tie with counting random loses in all the sets would be what gives someone first/second/third. And you can make a lot of stupid examples when the last set is not the set for the tournament.

Fun idea but something we not should use in tournaments anymore if you ask me.

 

[Jockmaster]

I tend to agree on the point that it kills hype by allowing you to lose before you are done playing.

 

[Beat!]

Top 8 RR seems like a decent concept, but it would probably not work out as well every time as it did at FC.

Bones has it right. Swiss --> double elim ftw.

 

[-ACE-]

Fun to try it out but I think haveing a RR between top 8 is not that good.

1: Players will "give up" more often becasue they can't win in the end (I have seen stuff like this in pools too).

2: This is not a good way to give "correct" places either. People that have been loseing a few sets have way less to play for so I think they will play worse then they would in winners/losers bracket. In a DE you still have the chance to win the tournament when you are still in the bracket. If you lose 2 sets in that RR it is close to impossible to win the tournament and you have to play 5 more sets just to take a specific spot.

3: Way less hype then a normal bracket because it can be over before the last set between the two players with the best points (they maybe already have played because they were not seeded to place first and second). A decent example of the "flaws" could have been if Axe would have been beating Hbox at FC and Mango/Hbox played the last set. That way if Hbox would have won the set all would had the same ammount of loses (in sets) and a tie with counting random loses in all the sets would be what gives someone first/second/third. And you can make a lot of stupid examples when the last set is not the set for the tournament.

Fun idea but something we not should use in tournaments anymore if you ask me.

^^ Pretty sure a ton of people are just going to agree with Armada without thinking this through whatsoever. Calling it now lol

 

[Gastogh]

I loved the RR for top places and want to see more of it.

2: This is not a good way to give "correct" places either. People that have been loseing a few sets have way less to play for so I think they will play worse then they would in winners/losers bracket. In a DE you still have the chance to win the tournament when you are still in the bracket. If you lose 2 sets in that RR it is close to impossible to win the tournament and you have to play 5 more sets just to take a specific spot.

It's still better than a bracket, though. When running a bracket, if you lose "a few sets", you're already out of the tournament, and here "a few" means "two". The results can be unreliable for anyone outside the top 2, such as at Beast 2 where no less than three different people only lost to you and Ice in bracket.

With RR, not only are you still in the game after losing two sets, but you can also have something to play for. Just make the payouts different for each placing; that way it'll still matter whether you get 6th or 8th.

 

[PB&J]

KirbyKaze if you use the concept of round robin for top 8 it seems like you should punish the four in losers somehow, other wise they could lose in winners intentionally to manipulate which side of the losers bracket they would be on. That was probably the reason behind the continuation sets. So if you do away with those it seems you should use something else so that the four from losers have a disadvantage going into the round robin. I have always thought that rule sets where losing a set may be giving you an advantage were not good rule sets!

 

[KirbyKaze]

That makes sense.

 

[Fortune]

With RR, not only are you still in the game after losing two sets, but you can also have something to play for. Just make the payouts different for each placing; that way it'll still matter whether you get 6th or 8th.

I agree. Making each place have its own payout will prevent players from giving up. This is important because if players give up, those who face off against them will get free wins, even if they would normally go even against each other. These free wins will possibly alter the placing of the player who receives them.

 

[stelzig]

I personally feel less pressure (and often play worse) when playing in a pool rather than in elimination and I think it somewhat requires a different mentality to do well in that setting. It's also the reason I feel less hyped about watching RR sets.

Logically, the pressure should be the same, as winning is still just as important. But it just doesn't strike me the same way (maybe it's because my desire to get to keep playing is actually higher than outright winning everything, idk).

Umm... This isn't really an argument to stopping it though. Just my personal feelings towards these. And I still enjoyed the FC finals very much

 

[Twinkles]

I think double elimination should still be the standard. It lets hype build up to grand finals as onlookers get tense wondering who's going to get eliminated and who's going to make it to the top. Also, it seems easier and less time-consuming to run.

But I AM going to enjoy watching all of the sets that the top 8 produced. That was a nice outcome of this layout.

 

[Youngling]

with RR top 8, I think you sacrifice hype during the tournament in order to have more hype after.

 

[Massive]

RR sets are good for watchers but brutal for participants.

Each participant was required to play a minimum of 21 tournament matches, excluding any continuance matches, with very little rest in between.
By the end of the top 8 RR almost every person involved was absolutely worn out and tired of playing, a fact made visible in the complete lack of hype for draft crews.

 

[oukd]

^I disagree with this (good for watches part)...brackets are more exciting for sure. The only benefit of rr is more material, but less hype.

I can't really debate the accuracy of placing between the two, but when you play a rr you're just checking everyone against each other to see how you place. In a double elim pool, if you lose two sets, that's it, you're straight up out.

It's not that the risk is larger, simply a lot more palpable than it is in the round robin. With what's on the line being so much more tangible, brackets boost the hype behind sets leading to the grand finals more than the round robin.

 

[DerfMidWest]

I think double elim bracket is still far superior to RR.

 

[rjgbadger]

didnt read but i prolly agree with ARmada

 

[DerfMidWest]

thats prolly the way to go, I hear he's a pree smert guy

 

[Armada]

It's still better than a bracket, though. When running a bracket, if you lose "a few sets", you're already out of the tournament, and here "a few" means "two". The results can be unreliable for anyone outside the top 2, such as at Beast 2 where no less than three different people only lost to you and Ice in bracket.

With RR, not only are you still in the game after losing two sets, but you can also have something to play for. Just make the payouts different for each placing; that way it'll still matter whether you get 6th or 8th.

Yeah Beast 2 was a bit unlucky for some players because Hack did a upset and was beating Ice in the bracket AND Ice lost in pools against Ek so he lost the seed he would have had and that's why Ice was on my side from the begining.

Ofc those stupid things can happen and I never tried to say the system is perfect. But in a DE you can make sure that everyone that actually cares will play the best they can during the entire DE and that is not the case for a RR I think. Ofc they still can end up at 3rd or something but I think a lot of people will care less when they can't win because they have less to play for then they have in a DE cause they can still WIN the tournament.

In a RR you can't win if you lose ONE set if the player you lost against wins every set. Ofc that player deserve the win but the fact that one set will be enough in a lot of cases (yeah Mango won all sets in the RR at FC for example) proves that to win the tournament you can't afford loseing one set in most situations. I think that is a strong argument for why DE is better becasue then we have serious play all the way for sure.

 

[Juggleguy]

Armada, your point about players "giving up" because they've already lost a couple sets is a fair one... but it's way more relevant at a local or regional than at a major/national like FC. Anyone at the tourney who looked into Darkrain's eyes before his last set vs Kage can tell you there is no ****ing way he had given up. Do you think he could have accepted being the only one who didn't win a set in the round robin? Do you think he was resigned to going home with less money? Do you think he was willing to trot onto the livestream stage only to put in a half-*** effort? Hell no. I can guarantee you that the difference in personal pride and monetary payout should make the "giving up" issue almost completely irrelevant at a major/national, and this is especially true if most of the final round robin matches are streamed, like they were at FC.

 

[KirbyKaze]

The RR mitigates the damage that losing a random set can do. I kind of like it for this reason. But I know some people don't like that.

 

[Juggleguy]

It lessens the severity one janky matchup can have on a player's overall placing. In a double-elim bracket, that one janky matchup can make or break an entire tournament for someone.

 

[Bones0]

What if you did something like triple elimination past top 8/16? Idk the details of how triple elimination even works, but it seems like it would be a solid middle ground between more sets to protect vs. upsets and less sets to protect vs. sandbagging/hype-killing. I think it would also avoid any issue with continuation sets or a lack of advantage for staying in winners up to that point.

 

[Habefiet]

Asked in the tourney thread, never got an answer, going to ask here: Was there anyone that was actually present at the event that thought the RR format detracted from the hype? Because so far I don't think I've seen anyone that was there expressing discontent with it. I certainly thought it was amazing in that regard, and so far I've seen an astonishing amount of people express that this may well have been their favorite event ever (this includes two of the top eight).

I sincerely hope that all of the players that were top eight come in this thread (or have a proxy, in Mango's case) and express their opinions on the matter--how they felt while playing, how they think it compares to DE, whether they think it is more or less fair, how they'd tweak it, how hype it was, etc.

I'm sitting out the fairness discussion for now because I need to meditate on the issue some. But based on the hype alone I'd absolutely love to see another tourney try this sometime. The hype was insane, and not just because of Darkrain.

I had major doubts before the event that were all hype-related, but being there live and watching it all play out pretty much eradicated them.

 

[DerfMidWest]

wow... triple elim...

it would be possible...

its like... you got winner's bracket, then loser's bracket...
then super loser's bracket.
so the winner of super loser's bracket would play the winner of standard loser's bracket (this would act as a mini-grandfinals) then the winner would play the winner of winner's bracket (true grand finals) and would need to win 3 sets or lose 2 (unless they came from super loser's in which they would need to lose only 1)

thats quite silly.

 

[Bones0]

I can't wait to see PP coming out of Super Loser's to play 3 back-to-back sets.

 

[Divinokage]

To me, I really liked that idea because if you had some personal beef between players that have beaten you in previous tournaments then you have 100% chance to meet them in the pool and kick their *** which doesn't happen in double elim brackets. Juggleguy pretty much made a very good point, no one in the pool wanted to get a **** placing in their pool.. I definitely felt the strong will to win every set I've played. For me it was extremely hype, there was tons of it. I don't think I've been this tense ever playing in Top 8.

 

[Bones0]

Never post again, Kage (didn't read your post).

 

[Divinokage]

Never post again, Kage (didn't read your post).

Hehe I mean it is the Finals pools.. whytf would you sandbag even if your placing cannot be 1st or 2nd.. you gotta represent your region and character at all times.

 

[Bones0]

No, you idiot. I was talking about your post count!

 

[kalamazhu]

aparently a lot of the people at FC thought it was a great idea

 

[Bones0]

That's cause it just happened to work out nicely. Wait until there's 3-way ties and BS tiebreakers deciding the tournament based on sets that happened between two completely different players 45 minutes earlier.

 

[Divinokage]

That's cause it just happened to work out nicely. Wait until there's 3-way ties and BS tiebreakers deciding the tournament based on sets that happened between two completely different players 45 minutes earlier.

If that happened, they said they would make a mini bracket to break those ties.

 

[KishPrime]

What he said.

Also, why does it have to be one way or the other? Why can't each tournament have their own system? Really with the formats we're discussing, they all work, they just work in different ways and basically just as effectively.

There's no right answer here, and you're wrong if you say there is. This format was 100% right for FC. It may not be for anyone else.

 

[Bones0]

I'm just glad you guys didn't have items on. ;D

 

[KishPrime]

I've always regretted that it's truly not feasible. -_-

 

[-ACE-]

I can't wait to see PP coming out of Super Loser's to play 3 back-to-back sets.

There's 2 people that PP could lose to twice in a row in the world, both being fairly unlikely. And there's no way one of those 2 people would be in losers to send him into super losers unless the bracket is wack lol

edit: also, damn, I'm with kish... TO's can have their own system, and SHOULD. ****, that's how we really learn what systems yield what results. Theory crafting is usually not THAT far off, but nothing beats actual experimentation. You never know, you could be surprised with how things turn out.

 

[Bones0]

Well it's settled. Enough of this theorycrafting that items will be unbalanced. The metagame has been developed without them long enough. Time to add them back into the equation so we can begin to really learn how to play this game.