Free for all for pools?

[GUIGUI]

Has Free-for all ever been considered for the pooling?

We all know Smash tourney can take a lot of time, and using a pooling system with Free for all, then switching to a double elimination for the top 16 or 32 might be optimal.

Especially with the 8 fighter option available, I wonder how effective it would be if timed match with points (instead of stocks, to prevent sneaky player avoiding any confrontation to be favored) were used. For each fight you mix the composition (with aim, if possible to never have the same opponent in your pool twice), then add the points and the 16 or 32 players who have accumulated the most point go for the double elimination tournament.

Would it be fair, would the result reflect the capacity of the player? would it be more time efffective (and fun?) what would be the reason fo such a configuration to turn bad.

 

[GUIGUI]

I just realized one of the big problem would be that for a 8 players match to go well and be clear to play and see, you would need a rather big screen (and several at that if you want to do several pooling at the same time). It might be quite a cost.

 

[Jucchan]

I don't see how this would be a good way of measuring players' skills, the strategies for Free for All are completely different from 1 on 1. This would be like having items on for pools, using 2 v 2 for pools, or playing sudden death for pools. It would be like playing badminton to advance to Wimbledon.

 

[Jaxas]

One reason this wouldn't work:

"Hey guys, if we all 3 (or 7) VS 1 M2K, we might be able to advance! Let's do it!"

 

[Terotrous]

Basically any mode with more than 2 teams is not viable competitively, because it's very advantageous for supposedly independent players to collude and there's no way to stop it.

 

[GUIGUI]

I don't see how this would be a good way of measuring players' skills, the strategies for Free for All are completely different from 1 on 1. This would be like having items on for pools, using 2 v 2 for pools, or playing sudden death for pools. It would be like playing badminton to advance to Wimbledon.

Only objection I am kinda disagreeing with there. It might be true it might not require the same kind of skills, but saying it's like putting item on or relying on Sudden death is false. Items are source of randomnes, randomness is not present in a free for all with no item.

But yeah, I can actually see almost-at-the-top players colluding together to put down top-players and make them not make out of the pool.

Too bad, tough, I have always wondered wwhat a Free for all would look like in a competitive setting.

 

[GUIGUI]

Tough, there is actually in "For Glory" a setting that ban players for gangin up on a single opponent. I don't know how effective this algoryhtme is, but if it can be implemented to automatically penalize players who gang up on a single opponent, I wonder if it might become a fair game...

 

[Terotrous]

Tough, there is actually in "For Glory" a setting that ban players for gangin up on a single opponent. I don't know how effective this algoryhtme is, but if it can be implemented to automatically penalize players who gang up on a single opponent, I wonder if it might become a fair game...

It appears to be almost totally worthless. The ban is actually for "only targeting one player", and it's not very picky about when it applies it, sometimes you might just be edgeguarding a particular player to get the kill and you get banned.

 

[GUIGUI]

It appears to be almost totally worthless. The ban is actually for "only targeting one player", and it's not very picky about when it applies it, sometimes you might just be edgeguarding a particular player to get the kill and you get banned.

Oh well. (also, it appears, you have something buggy on your computer)

 

[SamuraiPanda]

You can discuss this in the stickied ruleset discussion thread.