• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

[NSW] Hunter Valley Smash - Back in business!

F_T_S

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
363
Location
Sydney
Shaya says:
dude i spent like monday sleeping
Shaya says:
tuesday/most of wednesday with luke
Shaya says:
now its thursday and ive had like a fever and a headache since last night
Shaya says:
and im strugglign to ****ing study
Shaya says:
which was what this week off was meant to be
Shaya says:
stop asking me to smash
Shaya says:
*rage quits*

Shaya has left the conversation.

FTS says:
D:


sorry, but win and life johns
 

Throwback

Smash Lord
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
1,249
Location
Green Tooth Gorge
Shame the tourney was so far away, not that I was around anyway. I guess I'm just surprised luke didn't end up going.

Btw, the rule that the finalist from winners has 2 chances is ridiculous.
 

swordsaint

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
4,379
Location
Western Sydney
It's a little unfair, but without it, it's unfair on the winner of the winners bracket because he has no advantage despite his efforts.
 

S.D

Smash Master
Joined
Feb 25, 2008
Messages
4,062
Location
Sleeping in a submarine
Ted's pretty much on the money. It's DOUBLE elimination, which means you need to lose 2 sets to be knocked out. It's completely fair.
 

Gords

Smash Champion
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
2,275
Location
Sydney
have we got anyone claiming the wiimote i have yet,

also zero if your coming down for teds and EAs meets can you bring my wiimote down with you thank you.
 

Throwback

Smash Lord
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
1,249
Location
Green Tooth Gorge
In my mind double elimination exists only to ensure that the best 2 players reach the final. Once the best 2 players are in the final, they should both have an equal playing field.

Giving 2 chances to the winner of winner's bracket makes the final lopsided and of uncertain length - which makes it much less entertaining than it should be.
 

ComboTurtle

Smash Lord
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
1,866
Location
Australia
Ted's pretty much on the money. It's DOUBLE elimination, which means you need to lose 2 sets to be knocked out. It's completely fair.
thats why i got ripped off in our final and there should've been another game :(

but thats how all of teds tourneys have done finals and we both knew it so im not complaining just saying that it should be run the way it was not best of 5 in final
 

Bjay

Smash Lord
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,925
Location
Sydney
In previous tournaments the way we did it was that if you went through all rounds in Double Elimination undefeated, you are up 1 point in the finals for Best of 5. So basically you'd already be leading 1-0.
 

swordsaint

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
4,379
Location
Western Sydney
I think, what someone said was entirely true. I can't remember who said it, but double eliminations is simply to ensure both top players reach the final. I think once it's the grand final it should be "double elimination" no longer applies and instead a best of 3 sets. Each set consisting of best of 3, or best 5.
 

S.D

Smash Master
Joined
Feb 25, 2008
Messages
4,062
Location
Sleeping in a submarine
Sometimes whatever the score was when both players met in the brackets is carried over, this was how it worked in many MLG events. For instance if you won 2-0 in your bracket set you're already up 2-0 in the finals set.

More frequently the losers bracket winner needs to win 2 sets.

Or as Bjay says, sometimes you just get a 1-0 lead.

Perhaps it seems like a lopsided playing field, but then where is the advantage for winning the winners bracket? Surely you've earned some type of reward?

Obviously whatever system is used is up to the TO, but coming from winners bracket deserves an adv imo.
 

Zero

Smash Hero
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
5,825
Location
ワイヤード
If you win all through the winners bracket, and have your "second chance" taken away from you in the grand finals, where's the justice in that? It's more of an advantage to lose in the semi finals and play arguably lesser skilled players, for an easier ride, then. This way, it's fair and gives a worthy incentive to play to keep winning.

I am so buggered. Kayaking is a ***** and the new Fast and the Furious is terrible.
 

Throwback

Smash Lord
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
1,249
Location
Green Tooth Gorge
If a good player really wants to reach the final, they will hardly choose to sit in losers and risk being eliminated. What if someone else does the same thing?

Also, should football teams who do better in finals get an advantage in the grand final?
 

swordsaint

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
4,379
Location
Western Sydney
If a good player really wants to reach the final, they will hardly choose to sit in losers and risk being eliminated. What if someone else does the same thing?

Also, should football teams who do better in finals get an advantage in the grand final?
Best example yet.

Put it this way as well Shaya who won in winners had to lose TWO sets to Toby. Everyone already knew the outcome.
 

Shaya

   「chase you」 
BRoomer
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
27,654
Location
/人◕‿‿◕人\ FABULOUS Max!
NNID
ShayaJP
Football tournaments aren't Double Elimination.

They're a round robin ... with set 'cuts' of when teams are eliminated by the rank they receive through points.

Also in Queensland at LanSmash, I was in the winner's bracket, I did get two sets to beat Chris. I was too tired to do well in the second set and pretty darn fast after he just took out the first.
 

S.D

Smash Master
Joined
Feb 25, 2008
Messages
4,062
Location
Sleeping in a submarine
There usually is a reward for being the first placed team, whether it be a second chance or not. In many sports there are big money rewards for topping the ladder, and in rugby league the highest placed teams get weeks off when they win in finals. All rewards for being on top, which they EARNED through hard work in reaching the top in the first place.

If you don't much like having to win two sets, win winners bracket...
 

Shaya

   「chase you」 
BRoomer
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
27,654
Location
/人◕‿‿◕人\ FABULOUS Max!
NNID
ShayaJP
If you don't much like having to win two sets, win winners bracket...
Protip: This is my philosophy.

But, not everyone can do this, I'm better at keeping my promises <3.

But yeah, when it came to the ACT tournament, there's a good chance I could have taken out the second set; my esteem was low when I ****ed up in the second last and last match. But it's all theory.
 

Shaya

   「chase you」 
BRoomer
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
27,654
Location
/人◕‿‿◕人\ FABULOUS Max!
NNID
ShayaJP
For lack of a better word, and guys, don't take it too seriously;

It's a bit of a scrub mentality to want otherwise to what is currently in place. It stems to how seriously people consider character as the entrant in a tournament rather than the PLAYER themselves.

In other words, assume that tcr beat me in the first set with pokemon trainer whilst I only used Marth, and quite soundly at that. The mentality you guys have here is "oh his character lost, it's over", instead of it being "the player lost". The player who was still in the winner's bracket losing completely from one set is unfair, but if they're going to be using the same character (as many of the people here who don't "play to win" would do) sure, there shouldn't be a second set - the result is most likely to be the same.

Trying to change the rules because you don't have a play to win attitude is counter-productive. And it's also against what this whole competitive scene is about.
 

Throwback

Smash Lord
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
1,249
Location
Green Tooth Gorge
should point out that when it comes to finals of football, those on top of the ladder can lose a game but have a second chance against a lower ranked team (that won their first round).

the competitive scene is all about making sure the best players win. giving a massive advantage to one player in what should be a match of similar skill means that the best player may not necessarily win.

Generally finals are recommended to be best of 3 sets, with the championship match a best of 5 (from the official SBR ruleset: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=230481. That way the 2 best players get to the final (by double-elim) and the best player wins the final (best of 5 is long enough to determine that).
 

Dedu

Smash Lord
Joined
Mar 12, 2007
Messages
1,380
Location
です
It's a bit of a scrub mentality to want otherwise to what is currently in place. It stems to how seriously people consider character as the entrant in a tournament rather than the PLAYER themselves.
Yeah but if you know the character matchups after a fair while of playing and you know how the other person plays well against different characters then the character matchup is crucial to winning the competition.

I dunno Brawl char adv so I'll be using Melee...
Player 1 (Peach) vs player 2 (Fox)
Player 1 will always win against Player 2's Fox as Peach.
But Player 2 will get a better chance of winning if he uses Marth against Player 1's Peach.

Player 1 loses that first match due to change of character switch.
Player 1 then changes to Sheik to beat teh Fsmasher.

Player 2 loses the second matchup. He's on his nerves and decides to go back to Fox.

Result: Player 2 lost to Peach because the other player knows how his Fox would play...

And no this is not based from actual matchups, but rather from experience in character matchups when two players know how to play alot of characters in the game (versatility)

That is entirely different to what Shaya was pointing out. Yes it's to do with why player 1 lost to player 2 (playstyles and pressure to win) AS WELL AS character matchup advantages.
 

EverAlert

Smash Master
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Messages
3,433
Location
Australia
NNID
EVAL89
3DS FC
2664-2214-3431
<snipped mini-lecture on playing to win + bracket format>
I completely agree with this. I've also noticed people lack a proper 'playing to win' mentality in general.

LOLOLOL I KNOW ABOUT X RELEASE GRAB BUT DONT DO IT CAUSE ITS GAY/CHEAP/WHATEVER.

LOLOLOL I CAN DO X CHAIN GRAB BUT DONT CAUSE ITS CHEAP/ETC.

We are a competitive community, are we not?
 

Toby.

Smash Master
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
3,156
Location
South of the border, west of the sun.
Playing to win has its limits. Blindly following Sirlin's (extremely well written) argument is foolish.

Case in point: If you are truly playing to win in brawl, you will pick metaknight, get a % lead and then plank until you get a decent opening. Then you should punish it and continue your planking.

DURR, LETS ALL PLAY TO WIN.

We have common sense and decency, do we not?
 

Zero

Smash Hero
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
5,825
Location
ワイヤード
Sure, we play to win, but we also play for fun (at least I do). Winning a game through release grabs isn't fun to do, or fun to watch.

10melees
 
Top Bottom