I propose all M2K bracket sets in the future be played as best of 5.

[how2smashbrothers]

Goddammit.

More seriously, what I'm saying is that future tournaments with such a huge attendance should just do best of 5 for all bracket matches, especially when 1st round sets could be Grand Finals for any regional tournament, and you get progressively more ridiculous matches into the bracket that get played as best of 3 that really need to be played as best of 5.

I don't know, just makes more sense to me. Or someone tell me why I'm wrong.

 

[LoganW]

while i understand your point, it would just take too long and isn't necessary

 

[Strong Badam]

to be fair, m2k should have learned from last time about the 3/5 ****

 

[Wumbologist]

I understand exactly. I hate it when you're finally catching on to how someone plays and you know you could out-play them if you were given more time (in any manner, whether it be more minutes, stocks, matches...etc.).

Longer sets would show more precision, but it would take a lot longer in most situations, and people are bound to complain about it because it's change. I, personally, wouldn't be affected because I don't find many opportunities to compete in tourney's, but if I had to choose a side I would say that if everyone had a place to play each round (a station for each pair) then fifteen minutes wouldn't hurt. For those smaller venues and household tournaments, best of three would be ideal.

 

[The Irish Mafia]

No.

Seriously, no. I love m2k as much as the next guy, but no. Tourneys would take weeks.

 

[Turbo Ether]

I disagree. Smash tournaments take too long as it is.

 

[nyc_tag$]

I don't agree with doing a three out of five for every match, but I think when it comes down to matches where payout is on the line (top 16 players at pound 4) sets should be 3/5.

 

[scorekid100]

no it would take wayy too long. True that a longer set would give a more accurate result but smash tournies are long enough already. However sets more into the tourney where money is will be given to the winner should be considered.

 

[Reioumu]

at the op, tell me why you're right? You reasons make no sense to me. best of 3 is fine what is wrong with best of 3? Plus the brackets are long enough with 64 people in it... Also Jiggs and Peach matches tend to take time :/. Also the brackets are double elimination. Single elim brackets, sure I wouldn't mind 3/5... But double elim takes way too long...

 

[Moooose]

3/5 allows players more opportunity to adapt to eachother and would reflect true skill better (imo). personally i think semi's and up should be 3/5. by the time the tournament gets to that point an extra match or two doesn't really matter.

 

[Reioumu]

Nah, being able to adapt fast and catch on fast is a better showing of skill IMO than playing the same person for 3 hours constantly.

 

[Nihonjin]

Nah, being able to adapt fast and catch on fast is a better showing of skill IMO than playing the same person for 3 hours constantly.

I disagree.

 

[Mew2King]

yeah I don't see how learning someones habits makes them better it just means they can adapt better it doesn't make them better at the game it's just 1 aspect

 

[D1]

3/5 mayyyybe for semies of big nationals at least...but not every f*ckin match wtf...ppl have schedules.

 

[Requiem]

Being slow is not an excuse to suck at the game.

 

[how2smashbrothers]

Bo5 just means less variance. Obviously logistics becomes a problem but that's up to the TO to figure out. Bo5 for all matches determining payout seems reasonable.

If Armada happened to have been seated on the same half of the bracket as Mango in Genesis (by chance since there are many 1st seeds from pools), would he have won Genesis? It took Mango 9 matches to sort Armada out (on his last stock) and give us the best Grand Finals we've seen in a long time. You're saying if they met in Winner's Quarters then whatever just bo3 and be done with it? Bo3 at high, high levels of play just doesn't seem to cut it.

I mean, I *get* the logistical problem, but don't try to convince me that bo3 is more skillful then bo5. It's not. There's more variance by virtue of less games.

 

[Spit-wad]

Go Bo5 with single elimination.

I haven't been to any tournies, so there's a very good chance I'm wrong, but it seems like a lot of players don't take the upper bracket seriously. So **** double elimination. If upper bracket games don't matter, then whats the point? Bo5 single elim would be much quicker than Bo3 double elim.

I just have heard so many commentaries where it's like "oh it was only an upper bracket game" or "he's saving it for the lower bracket". So dumb. Double elimination brackets are designed to give the upper bracket the advantage. You have a shorter path to the finals and theoretically get to play easier (lower seeded) opponents. So basically double elimination is only worthwhile if people realize this and give the upper bracket 100%, which it doesn't seem like everybody does.

 

[Ryuker]

Go Bo5 with single elimination.

I haven't been to any tournies, so there's a very good chance I'm wrong, but it seems like a lot of players don't take the upper bracket seriously. So **** double elimination. If upper bracket games don't matter, then whats the point? Bo5 single elim would be much quicker than Bo3 double elim.

I just have heard so many commentaries where it's like "oh it was only an upper bracket game" or "he's saving it for the lower bracket". So dumb. Double elimination brackets are designed to give the upper bracket the advantage. You have a shorter path to the finals and theoretically get to play easier (lower seeded) opponents. So basically double elimination is only worthwhile if people realize this and give the upper bracket 100%, which it doesn't seem like everybody does.

Waisting your winners bracket match is dumb. ! win in winners lets you start 2 rounds or so later in losers so it's only beneficial for the player if he/she tries to win. Of course it depends on the brackets and your opponents what path you wanna chose.

If its one of those almost certain top 5 players though then I can understand it's different cause they might wanna use winners to analyse so they can come back from losers full force. Even then though it's a big risk.

The "best of " amount is up to the tourne host. I guess if he'd agreed on a best 5 for a particular encounter they could do it. It's not entirely fair though for the others in the tournament.

In europe we use best 5 from semi's I think and best of 7 in finals. But we never had a tourney with the scale of pound and if we were in the same situation I guess we'd do the same thing. I guess it depends on the player weither you prefer best of 3,5 or 7. I Like finals to be seven cause a lot can happen that way. But I've als seen boring finals that took a long time.

 

[LLDL]

No Topics About Individual Players "locked"

 

[Nihonjin]

yeah I don't see how learning someones habits makes them better it just means they can adapt better it doesn't make them better at the game it's just 1 aspect

I disagree with this too.

Being able to adapt fast is what's most important in the game, in my opinion this game is all about learning your opponents habits and capitalizing on them.

My point is, that at higher level play, a best of 3 is simply too short. And because of that it gives people who aren't as good at the game a chance to beat people known to be better than they are.

So I'm all for best of 5's.

 

[TheLake]

Amsah layin down the justice

I think every match should be best of 4

in the event of a tie

you go down to grab the coins

**** aint easy

may the greediest man win

cause at the end of the day folks...

we all know its about the money

 

[how2smashbrothers]

Amsah layin down the justice

I think every match should be best of 4

in the event of a tie

you go down to grab the coins

**** aint easy

may the greediest man win

cause at the end of the day folks...

we all know its about the money

lol

@Chainace: Read the first post man, I used m2k as an example but the thread is about high level tourney matchups between people in general. At least read if you're going to be a prude.

 

[ADHD]

Goddammit.

More seriously, what I'm saying is that future tournaments with such a huge attendance should just do best of 5 for all bracket matches, especially when 1st round sets could be Grand Finals for any regional tournament, and you get progressively more ridiculous matches into the bracket that get played as best of 3 that really need to be played as best of 5.

I don't know, just makes more sense to me. Or someone tell me why I'm wrong.

You are screwing over characters like falco and diddy kong who need neutrals. We're already kind of disadvantaged when we step into a finals set.

 

[Eggm]

I think tag $'s idea is the best. Its in between only semi finals and the whole bracket, right in the middle. Bo5 if Money is on the line. Bigger the turnout out usually means deeper payouts and then more will be bo 5 in the important matches. And if the turnout isn't that big it will probably only be semi's being payed out to and only semi's will be best of 5. I like it a lot. Lets say 13th is 35$ its essentially a 35$ MM, I think that is at least worth a best of 5. I mean fox dittos are over in like 2 minutes a whole set in 4 minutes that can be decided by a few frames at one point in 1 match is just over too quick for me.

 

[pockyD]

i have an issue with the whole "money on the line" thing (which is the whole reason we do semi-finals to begin with - semi-finals = money in a top 3 payout structure), which is that if you lose a bo5 in the winner's bracket (say winner's semis), then you may go back to playing a bo3 in the loser's bracket (in loser's quarters)

bo5 is supposed to signify a more important match, but how can the more important match come before the less important one time-wise?

I think that once the winner's-side goes to bo5, all subsequent loser's side matches should be bo5 too

 

[Nihonjin]

^That's what I said before my set with Jman..

 

[Inui]

MLG did Bo5 for all bracket sets, then Bo7 for finals. That was awesome and good.

 

[Tamoo]

i have an issue with the whole "money on the line" thing (which is the whole reason we do semi-finals to begin with - semi-finals = money in a top 3 payout structure), which is that if you lose a bo5 in the winner's bracket (say winner's semis), then you may go back to playing a bo3 in the loser's bracket (in loser's quarters)

bo5 is supposed to signify a more important match, but how can the more important match come before the less important one time-wise?

I think that once the winner's-side goes to bo5, all subsequent loser's side matches should be bo5 too

I fully agree with everything here, that's all that needs to be changed imo

 

[stelzig]

I understand exactly. I hate it when you're finally catching on to how someone plays and you know you could out-play them if you were given more time (in any manner, whether it be more minutes, stocks, matches...etc.).

Longer sets would show more precision, but it would take a lot longer in most situations, and people are bound to complain about it because it's change. I, personally, wouldn't be affected because I don't find many opportunities to compete in tourney's, but if I had to choose a side I would say that if everyone had a place to play each round (a station for each pair) then fifteen minutes wouldn't hurt. For those smaller venues and household tournaments, best of three would be ideal.

Why would it show more precision? Some might argue that the one who's able to learn his opponent quicker or simply outplaying his opponent before both are extremely used to eachother is more skilled than the one who can first win when he knows his opponent from playing him for a long time (like 2 friends who've played eachother for ages 1 might usually beat the other, but do worse in tournies because he doesn't adapt fast enough, then who's better?). There should be a balance point somewhere. bo5 might be better for that too i don't know. But i don't think you can just say that playing the same person more times makes the result reflect "real skill" better since that is relative.

And the top5 for pound4 seems pretty accurate to what you would consider the 5 best players from that tourney.

I disagree with this too.
Being able to adapt fast is what's most important in the game, in my opinion this game is all about learning your opponents habits and capitalizing on them.

Then why is bo3 too short if someone *can* adapt that fast? Or do you consider adaption to adaption so you think people should adapt multiple times a match?

 

[INSANE CARZY GUY]

The biggest flaw with this is the fact this will promote puff. Think, most people use a lot more mental and techical engery compared to puff they will easily tire them selfs out and quickly ran out of tricks.

 

[Zephynazo]

MLG did Bo5 for all bracket sets, then Bo7 for finals. That was awesome and good.

MLG was so good

 

[Nihonjin]

Then why is bo3 too short if someone *can* adapt that fast?

The same reason why a skilled hacker can get into your grandma's computer within 5 minutes, but doesn't think 5 minutes is enough to hack into NASA.

The better the opponent, the more time is required to adapt.

It's quite simple really, the more matches played, the clearer it becomes who's the better player.

 

[Devil Ray]

The biggest flaw with this is the fact this will promote puff. Think, most people use a lot more mental and techical engery compared to puff they will easily tire them selfs out and quickly ran out of tricks.

dude, you could easily flip that around for spacies and say that the more matches will give them time to warm up. i'm NOT saying you're wrong, but you can't say BO5 is bad just cuz of puff.

pockyD, amsah, and a little bit of eggm are correcto. it's easy to forget, so some TO or someone should remind ppl next time.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

Goddammit.

More seriously, what I'm saying is that future tournaments with such a huge attendance should just do best of 5 for all bracket matches, especially when 1st round sets could be Grand Finals for any regional tournament, and you get progressively more ridiculous matches into the bracket that get played as best of 3 that really need to be played as best of 5.

I don't know, just makes more sense to me. Or someone tell me why I'm wrong.

Get over it he's better than you and nothing will change that. C:

 

[rathy Aro]

I think this is a good idea and if a tourney in run smartly (not with melee) then there could be enough time assuming this is a 2-3 day event with **** loads of set ups (and again no melee).

I agree because often times people will play characters played at this high a level before or they've never encountered a certain style before. The element of surprise shouldn't be how one win's a tourney and if he's really good then he'll win the 3/5 anyway.

 

[Eddie G]

Not too sure if it would be effective time-wise for Brawl's slow *** gameplay, but emulating what MLG did with Melee doesn't seem like a bad idea. Thumbs up to the idea. :3

 

[demodemo]

bo5 after winners is a good idea, but that'd take pretty long too

 

[Problem2]

If given enough time, I could see this working out for Melee. Brawl kind of happens at a slow enough pace, that you don't even need that many games to start figuring your opponent out.

 

[how2smashbrothers]

You are screwing over characters like falco and diddy kong who need neutrals. We're already kind of disadvantaged when we step into a finals set.

It's my bad for not specifying that I'm only talking about Melee in the OP.

Do whatever you want with Brawl. That doesn't chafe my balls at all.

 

[Tin Man]

winner semi's, winner finals, loser finals, loser semi's, and the loser quarters (so basically the sets where the loser comes in 7th and 5th place) should all be Bo5.

grand finals bo7

who agrees?