Phantom Hits 2 CONFIRMED December 5th (First post update)

[Gantz ak-47]

kage is the best in the world or hugrybox.

 

[Professor Pro]

best player in Europe?? Perhapps even the world????????

I thought it was

 

[Cheez]

Prof, who is phoenix recruitment on-line?? is he/she good?

 

[Willz]

Did I ask you Bullet Bill? No I ****ing didn't so STFU.

Okay Prof tbh I think I'm already better than Mango atm.

 

[X1-12]

no, please explain.

But nothing of relevance has been said except for seedings.

its very annoying

edit: fail at quoting

 

[X1-12]

I'm also yet to find a way to get a non-text visual representation of X1-12

 

[Tamoo]

Ben: I never said the way you seeded was unfair, I just stated my logical conclusions on how I came to think you seeded this tournament. You're just jumping to conclusions that everything I post about you is a criticsm now.

I've had to come to these conclusions because you seem to constantly dodge answering the question of, how EXACTLY did you seed this tournament, because a lot of things don't add up to me, and I can think of more reasons to why even Dave should be a top seed than some of the people on there.
But seeing as you're refusing to go into detail about the seedings, or even talk about them anymore, I guess the process shall remain a mystery :/

 

[Tamoo]

J3LY: PLEASE REMEMBER TO BRING THE DAZZLE
Otherwise there's no point me bringing my laptop.
Is he definitely coming to this come to think of it?

 

[J03]

your questions will be answered with 'shut up and play' tactics in 2 days time

 

[Pickled_No0b]

PROF: with regards to me fixing pools, yes, i will be fixing them. Its gonna be me and you in a pool of our own, with a bottle of wine and 2 glasses, sound good?

 

[Unreal91]

J3LY: PLEASE REMEMBER TO BRING THE DAZZLE
Otherwise there's no point me bringing my laptop.
Is he definitely coming to this come to think of it?

You mean my Dazzle yer? lol

coz i borrowed it to him

 

[Professor Pro]

Prof, who is phoenix recruitment on-line?? is he/she good?

loool *** u.

J3LY: PLEASE REMEMBER TO BRING THE DAZZLE
Otherwise there's no point me bringing my laptop.
Is he definitely coming to this come to think of it?

Yes he is coming to this.


BEN - I've been speaking to some people about pools (not seeding lol) and basically is there any chance in doing pools which are bigger then 4?
Like pools of 6?
If not then what about doing pools of 4 where the top 3 go through.

Cos to be fair if only 2 people go through then we will get a bracket which is extremely similar to the seedings which is the top seed and the high seed progressing into the brackets.
And if we allow like 24 instead of 16 to go through into brackets it means a bigger placing and more games for everyone and overall more fun times lol.

I just think this seems fairer overall. I just don't like the thought of the majortiy of the people attending getting gay'd straight away and atleast give the people who aren't seeded a decent chance of advancing into the tournament.

The attendance of the tournament though is looking 40+ so we might be able to do pools of 5/6

What do other people think?

 

[J03]

its based on time. allowing another peep through gives us 24 peeps in a 32 man bracket, so theres lots of BYES. the annoying thing about byes is someone who goes straight out can get the same score as someone who won a game because the first dude got a bye at some point.

im for a 24 man bracket but a 16 man bracket is more competitive and it means more to get into it.

 

[Professor Pro]

Oh I see, I understand.
I didn't know about it creates a 32 man bracket.
And I also understand the concept of it becoming more competitive.

But i'm just hoping that this can get sorted out cos I just don't like the sound of 4 man pools and then 2 people progressing sounds a bit unfair from the start
I think there should be some form of letting new people get into brackets without some gay BYES if that exists lol.

 

[Pickled_No0b]

could have a 32 man pool, with 8 byes, for the top people in each pool, as these people will probs just win thier first bracket game anyway

 

[Professor Pro]

could have a 32 man pool, with 8 byes, for the top people in each pool, as these people will probs just win thier first bracket game anyway

What about the people who place top of the pools get the BYE?

 

[J03]

thats not the issue dude. the tops seeds get there bye in the first round but then where do the byes go, they dont dissapear, they go to the losers bracket so 8 people in losers get a free game and 8 others have to play someone else, how is that fair? imagine L-J vs craiigg go to losers and have to play eachother when say synapse goes through automatically.

PRO thats single elim dude. read above^

 

[Professor Pro]

Oh yeah loool

Just wanna help my fellow community but if there's no way around it then so be it.

Unless we magically get a high attendance which allows us to get a 32 man bracket lol.

 

[Pickled_No0b]

its fine its fine, I have used my amazing mathematical skills to solve it, but its kinda hard to explain in a post, but here goes:

24 go through from pools, the top 8 get byes.

16 man winners bracket, the loosing 8 form the LB, the winning 8 join the top 8 to make another 16 bracket.
so now you have a 16 man winners bracket, and an 8 man loosers bracket. If you just let this play out in the normal double elim way it works fine. (and i cba to write is all out)

 

[J03]

we definatly wont be implementing a new pool approach this close to the day. in future bring up your ideas as the tourneys announced =P

 

[Bullet Bill]

I will probably be doing 2 go through with pools of 4 or 5. This seems harsh but a lot of UK tournaments in the past has this format making it hard for unseeded players to go through. I don't want the bracket too large and this way any placing at all will be well earned.

 

[Alpha Dash]

i Will Probably Be Doing 2 Go Through With Pools Of 4 Or 5. This Seems Harsh But A Lot Of Uk Tournaments In The Past Has This Format Making It Hard For Unseeded Players To Go Through. I Don't Want The Bracket Too Large And This Way Any Placing At All Will Be Well Earned.

But Why When We Obviously Have All Friggin Day Who Cares If It Takes Long

 

[Professor Pro]

its fine its fine, I have used my amazing mathematical skills to solve it, but its kinda hard to explain in a post, but here goes:

24 go through from pools, the top 8 get byes.

16 man winners bracket, the loosing 8 form the LB, the winning 8 join the top 8 to make another 16 bracket.
so now you have a 16 man winners bracket, and an 8 man loosers bracket. If you just let this play out in the normal double elim way it works fine. (and i cba to write is all out)

This is the actual idea that I had with the post I made originally with the bracket posted picture lol.

Cos with a tournament of 40+ it's gay to know that there will only be 16 placings and more then 24+ didn't even get out of pools

Ben is there any chance in implementing Pickled_Noobs idea???

I would prefer looking at a 1 to 24 of placing at the end of this tournament instead of a more predictable 1 to 16.....and ALSO your tournament can give an easier head start for the UK National Ranking and we need all the help and placings we can go.

So what you say ???

 

[Alpha Dash]

I just think its unfair if someone gets an unlucky draw and gets high ranked people in their pool, AND FOR SOME REASON THATS ALWAYS ME but thats a different story. For example! I think I'm fairly decent at the game and I KNOW I will defeat most people but lets be realistic, how am I supposed to prove that I could take some of those people down if I'm to get... lets say fuzzyness and tamoo in my pool, thats ********

 

[Fuzzyness]

tails chao please bring my pad =/ I need my winning pad

 

[Clockmire]

we definatly wont be implementing a new pool approach this close to the day. in future bring up your ideas as the tourneys announced =P

If it actually works then I think we should. Does it take that much more effort?

its fine its fine, I have used my amazing mathematical skills to solve it, but its kinda hard to explain in a post, but here goes:

24 go through from pools, the top 8 get byes.

16 man winners bracket, the loosing 8 form the LB, the winning 8 join the top 8 to make another 16 bracket.
so now you have a 16 man winners bracket, and an 8 man loosers bracket. If you just let this play out in the normal double elim way it works fine. (and i cba to write is all out)

Where would the losers from the winner's bracket be entering the loser brackets?
Or do you mean they will run as entirely separate brackets (with winner brackets having their own loser brackets)? In which case, does the winner of the loser loser brackets get a chance to ascend back up to the other brackets or do we just give them a title of 17th?

I will probably be doing 2 go through with pools of 4 or 5. This seems harsh but a lot of UK tournaments in the past has this format making it hard for unseeded players to go through. I don't want the bracket too large and this way any placing at all will be well earned.

This is the actual idea that I had with the post I made originally with the bracket posted picture lol.

Cos with a tournament of 40+ it's gay to know that there will only be 16 placings and more then 24+ didn't even get out of pools

Ben is there any chance in implementing Pickled_Noobs idea???

I would prefer looking at a 1 to 24 of placing at the end of this tournament instead of a more predictable 1 to 16.....and ALSO your tournament can give an easier head start for the UK National Ranking and we need all the help and placings we can go.

So what you say ???

I agree with Prof. If we do use this bracket scheme then we can actually get a better ranking of all the players, which in turn makes seedings a lot easier for the next national.

Plus, say in theory there was a guy who could beat all of the high seeds except 1, and he gets placed in a pool with a top seed and the only high seed he couldn't beat. In a pool where only 2 people go through, that would be it. But if we had a 24 person bracket he could get through pools and would actually get a better chance to prove his worth.

 

[COEY]

What about the people who place top of the pools get the BYE?

thats a double elimination bracket for a 32 man bracket, only its missing its losers side and its first round byes.

its fine its fine, I have used my amazing mathematical skills to solve it, but its kinda hard to explain in a post, but here goes:

24 go through from pools, the top 8 get byes.

16 man winners bracket, the loosing 8 form the LB, the winning 8 join the top 8 to make another 16 bracket.
so now you have a 16 man winners bracket, and an 8 man loosers bracket. If you just let this play out in the normal double elim way it works fine. (and i cba to write is all out)

this wont work either, if you win your original game in the first bracket then lose your next game you still would go into the first round of losers right? but winning any game is supposed to automatically move you further into the losers bracket. for example the winning your first game means if you lose next you will enter losers in the 2nd round. you could have the 8 original losers duke it out for 2 rounds, but that would mean there would only be 2 of them left by the 3rd round, when the 8 new losers enter making 10 players in losers, this number of players doesnt fit a bracket.

 

[Bullet Bill]

right could someone explain to me how many byes there would be if I'm even going to consider using this.

Currently I am thinking of doing just a 16 man bracket with 8 pools of 5 (considering the turnout will be about 40)

 

[Jolteon]

yeah yeah charles i already packed it in my bag this morning lol .-.

 

[COEY]

I just think its unfair if someone gets an unlucky draw and gets high ranked people in their pool, AND FOR SOME REASON THATS ALWAYS ME but thats a different story. For example! I think I'm fairly decent at the game and I KNOW I will defeat most people but lets be realistic, how am I supposed to prove that I could take some of those people down if I'm to get... lets say fuzzyness and tamoo in my pool, thats ********

its just down to luck, this is what ive been trying to point out. it doesnt matter if you get screwed over by pools or brackets, your aiming for number one anyway so your gonna have to play them eventually. 13th/9th/7th/5th all not important. the whole system of pools and then double elimination bracket is full of flaws and is wildly inaccurate until the top 4 ish. its actually only really properly accurate at determining 1st and 2nd place.

passing pools at your first national is fantastic but if it doesnt happen it doesnt mean your a failure, its a learning experience as is every tourney you will ever attend, just go to learn and improve, it doesnt really mean anything unless your finishing in the money tbh.

 

[Pickled_No0b]

clockmire: ok, so i got up to the winners brack of 16 people (thats 8 + the 8 pool winners), and a loosers bracket of 8.

so WB plays, 8 win, 8 lose
LB is now 16 ppl, LB plays, now 8 ppl,
WB plays, now 4 ppl
LB is now 12 ppl, LB plays now 6 ppl
WB plays, now 2 ppl
LB is now 8 ppl, LB plays now 4 ppl
WB now skips a game, which makes sense, as the LB is a game behind.
LB plays twice, to find winner of LB
WB plays, to find winner of WB, looser plays winner of LB in loosers final
winner of that plays winner of WB in grand final.

hopefully you see the pattern, I think it works, and it just means that 24 ppl can go through instead of 16, tbh, i bet the tourney organiser program does it in exactly the same way.

In summary, a top placing person (someone that has a bye) needs to win 5 games to get to grand finals
someone in the winners bracket needs to play 6 games
and someone that went into the loosers bracket at any stage needs to play 7

EDIT: ahh ****, yeah, didnt see your post jo3, but i see what you mean, and your right.., let me re think lol

 

[Clockmire]

I'm not entirely sure what Callum means by the separate brackets.

If he means entirely separate then there isn't a problem, and this could actually be an interesting way to differentiate between 17th and 24th.

There could be an added incentive of the person winning this separate losers bracket getting a chance to enter the other brackets, but the main problem with this is where you would try and slot them in - you couldn't just get them to play the winner of the real loser's brackets, since a) it would be too much of a skill jump and wouldn't fit in with the whole idea of the extra bracket and b) it could be abused by people intentionally losing to then get an easy way to the loser's finals.

And like coey said, trying to integrate the separate brackets would result in failure.

EDIT: Oh I understand now, lol. But, say person A plays person B and B wins. He then goes on to play person C (who was 1st in his pool). He loses and goes to loser's. He'd then be on the same level as person A, right?

At first I thought this was unfair, but then I suppose B does get a chance to get into the winners whereas A doesn't. But yea. Doesn't the program do this anyway with 24 people in a 32 man bracket?

 

[Pickled_No0b]

im not even sure what i mean anymore lol

 

[Dacacia]

Didn't they do a 24 man bracket for GGT2? It must work out. I definitely think if there are enough people we should do that. Probly needs at least 40 people though, otherwise it's just harsh on the people that don't make it out of pools...

Edit: And Calum, if you're not going to lectures so you can 'work', I hardly think smashboards is a constructive use of your time...

 

[Gantz ak-47]

I just think its unfair if someone gets an unlucky draw and gets high ranked people in their pool, AND FOR SOME REASON THATS ALWAYS ME but thats a different story. For example! I think I'm fairly decent at the game and I KNOW I will defeat most people but lets be realistic, how am I supposed to prove that I could take some of those people down if I'm to get... lets say fuzzyness and tamoo in my pool, thats ********

LD: why would you pick tamoo?

 

[Clockmire]

In summary, I think the 32 man bracket with only 24 people is good. Even though people who won their original match then lost their second won't get an advantage over people who lost their first match, I think this is fairer than only letting 2 people out of pools.

 

[Pickled_No0b]

Didn't they do a 24 man bracket for GGT2? It must work out. I definitely think if there are enough people we should do that. Probly needs at least 40 people though, otherwise it's just harsh on the people that don't make it out of pools...

Edit: And Calum, if you're not going to lectures so you can 'work', I hardly think smashboards is a constructive use of your time...

hey ive actually got a lot done today!

what about this idea:

say 40 ppl come, have 5 pools of 8, top 4 go through

now have 4 pools of 5, top 2 go through

then have an 8 man bracket. lots of games, but we have all day. thoughts? it would be like the champions league of smash!

 

[Dacacia]

Nah, that idea sucks. It's getting dangerously close to swiss, and we all remember how well that turned out... Stop trying to make our tournament like football lol

Not least because 5 pools is a weird number (and means we'd have to work out more seeds )

 

[Bullet Bill]

I think I'm going to go with 16 man bracket and top2 go through with 8 pools of 5 (prob some with 4 or 6)

I know it seems harsh but thats life and Uk tournaments are highly competitve

 

[Pickled_No0b]

Nah, that idea sucks. It's getting dangerously close to swiss, and we all remember how well that turned out... Stop trying to make our tournament like football lol

Not least because 5 pools is a weird number (and means we'd have to work out more seeds )

ok, so in the original idea of a 24 man bracket, the problem was, was that people that won thier 1st and lost thier second would be in the same loosers match as people that lost their 1st. So how about, ppl that won thier first, take their 1st round LB match to a second set if and only if they lose it, in the same way that a grand final goes to a 2nd set if the LB winner wins, but not if the WB winner wins. This would apply to the 1st round of the LB only..