Smash UK Discussion Thread - Check first post for tournaments, facebook info and videos!

[Tamoo]

That has pros and cons

Yeah we get to decide the 'most efficient' method

but ppl will probably spend ages deciding on that 'most efficient' method, rendering the time saving optimisation process obsolete


But yeah lets just decide on the day, all this theorycrafting is getting nowhere lol

 

[rustediron]

Well I'm mainly considering 3 factors which I want to minimise/maximise/keep close to a specific value:

- Time taken to be close to what we have now
- Minimise the number of 'wasted matches'
- Maximise the number of players which are given the chance to get into the pro bracket

Balancing all these things means that time limits the 3rd factor and the 3rd factor limits the 2nd and first factors. If you assign all those things an equal priority, then my system is the ideal one.

 

[Cheez]

lmao at everyone hating on frugs theory when hes clearly right for a change

if you have more auto spots in the bracket than earned places that is quite frankly ridiculous, why bother turning up if the majority of the bracket is predestined

therefore if you want more than 8 pros through as this is apparently more efficient, you would need a larger bracket which causes more time to be wasted as half the problem is the time between pools and brackets as people start playing friendlies when their pool is done and then dont stop, plus generating bracket and generally organising people to play bracket matches etc

bearing in mind a larger bracket means we have 2 bigger brackets (amateur and pro both needing to be larger) this extra time is being wasted twice so its obvious that 8 is the MOST you can auto put through (a quick look to my post count tells you how much this needs to be said as i do not post unless i feel its absolutely necessary lol)

 

[Jolteon]

Well I'm mainly considering 3 factors which I want to minimise/maximise/keep close to a specific value:

- Time taken to be close to what we have now
- Minimise the number of 'wasted matches'
- Maximise the number of players which are given the chance to get into the pro bracket

Balancing all these things means that time limits the 3rd factor and the 3rd factor limits the 2nd and first factors. If you assign all those things an equal priority, then my system is the ideal one.

Your system is not very flexible if it requires a turnout that is divisible by 8 in order to work properly. Actually, it's impossible to decide on a number that is, so GP has the only valid answer when it comes to that.

Still though, I vote that we just do top 3-4, it still saves a considerable amount of time and stops the above average/average people from getting a free ride to brackets.

Also I just noticed your top 4 going through example has MORE sets than your status quo example, I think you must have screwed up somewhere lol.

lmao at everyone hating on frugs theory when hes clearly right for a change

if you have more auto spots in the bracket than earned places that is quite frankly ridiculous, why bother turning up if the majority of the bracket is predestined

Actually, this is my entire point, I think it should be limited to 4. I'm bringing this up because hugo wants more to go through for 2 reasons:

1) save time.
2) give lower skilled people a more enjoyable tournament experience.

if he's using that criteria, then 8 is clearly not a magic number by any means.

therefore if you want more than 8 pros through as this is apparently more efficient, you would need a larger bracket which causes more time to be wasted as half the problem is the time between pools and brackets as people start playing friendlies when their pool is done and then dont stop, plus generating bracket and generally organising people to play bracket matches etc

bearing in mind a larger bracket means we have 2 bigger brackets (amateur and pro both needing to be larger) this extra time is being wasted twice so its obvious that 8 is the MOST you can auto put through (a quick look to my post count tells you how much this needs to be said as i do not post unless i feel its absolutely necessary lol)

No, the bracket would still have 24 players, the pools would merely be smaller.

 

[Cheez]

the final bracket would have to be larger at least if you wanted more than half of them to be taken by pro spots, as i said, having a majority of places allocated before anyone even arrives is stupid. (with 24 man bracket i would assume by analysis of the 16 man bracket situation, 12 through would be optimal for time, but then the selection process becomes more difficult, and probably more unfair, as it always will as the number of auto spots gets larger)

also i did say that the most you could put through would be 8 (assuming a 16 man final bracket for the reason above)

4 would be acceptable i guess but if you were to do this and wanted to keep the amateur bracket fixed, you're looking at more pools matches than with 8 (as more people left in obviously) and then the same sized bracket on top so 8 would be less matches and more time saved

 

[rustediron]

Your system is not very flexible if it requires a turnout that is divisible by 8 in order to work properly. Actually, it's impossible to decide on a number that is, so GP has the only valid answer when it comes to that.

I don't understand, we would just have slightly uneven sized pools, a situation we've encountered almost every tournament and no-one has had problems with :S

Still though, I vote that we just do top 3-4, it still saves a considerable amount of time and stops the above average/average people from getting a free ride to brackets.

Also I just noticed your top 4 going through example has MORE sets than your status quo example, I think you must have screwed up somewhere lol.

the top 4 has the most sets because I'm assuming that we're going for big pools (as was mentioned earlier in the thread). Of course time could be cut down by reducing pool size, but that means that amateurs are playing less games against eachother, which is one of the factors we're trying to maximise.

Actually, this is my entire point, I think it should be limited to 4. I'm bringing this up because hugo wants more to go through for 2 reasons:

1) save time.
2) give lower skilled people a more enjoyable tournament experience.

if he's using that criteria, then 8 is clearly not a magic number by any means.



No, the bracket would still have 32 players, the pools would merely be smaller.

You've completely ignored my last post, where I specifically said I was motivated by 3, not 2 factors. You also want to cater for the mid-level players who have a decent chance against the above-average players, which means that they're given a reasonable opportunity to get into the pro tournament. Of course this factor is again limited by the two factors you've mentioned, however, so the middle value of 8 becomes the ideal.

 

[Jolteon]

the final bracket would have to be larger at least if you wanted more than half of them to be taken by pro spots, as i said, having a majority of places allocated before anyone even arrives is stupid.

also i did say that the most you could put through would be 8 (assuming a 16 man final bracket for the reason above)

4 would be acceptable i guess but if you were to do this and wanted to keep the amateur bracket fixed, you're looking at more pools matches than with 8 (as more people left in obviously) and then the same sized bracket on top so 8 would be less matches and more time saved

Not necessarily, you just lower the amount of top players that go through per pool. Increasing the bracket size to 24 is another solution, yes, but Hugo was arguing for efficiency.

16 man bracket (both cases)

4 pools of 5 (top 1 goes through) - 40 sets.
4 pools of 6 (top 2 goes through) - 60 sets.

You tell me which is more time efficient.

I know top 8>top 4 time wise, I just said that. x_x

However, I will say that Hugo's 3rd point that he brought up (maximising the amount of potential people that can go through and having a balance) is a good point. But... that's kinda the same reason I'm arguing for top 4, lol.

I don't understand, we would just have slightly uneven sized pools, a situation we've encountered almost every tournament and no-one has had problems with :S

It's not been like that for a while, it's obviously got some fairness issues if one person has a pool of 6 and one has a pool of 7 (with an equal amount of people who progress).

the top 4 has the most sets because I'm assuming that we're going for big pools (as was mentioned earlier in the thread). Of course time could be cut down by reducing pool size, but that means that amateurs are playing less games against eachother, which is one of the factors we're trying to maximise.

Oh I see, you gave the top 4 example big pools and the regular example small pools. That's not keeping it consistent. :| You change one thing at a time when comparing stuff, not two.

You've completely ignored my last post, where I specifically said I was motivated by 3, not 2 factors. You also want to cater for the mid-level players who have a decent chance against the above-average players, which means that they're given a reasonable opportunity to get into the pro tournament. Of course this factor is again limited by the two factors you've mentioned, however, so the middle value of 8 becomes the ideal.

I read the 3rd point afterwards, like I said earlier in my post that's the entire point of me choosing 4 over 8. We clearly have different ideas on how to balance this, 8 is your optimal choice and 4 is mine.

 

[SwizzyUK]

My job is analytics, so I can tell y'all that people are just pulling random numbers out of the air and working backwards to justify them. All your reasons have been solid, just the logic doesn't give you any specific number unless you add in your opinion (which I think is what Jolteon just said)

If I add my opinion to your logic, I get that top 4 should go through.

To simplify the reasoning - assuming either frost or edwin doesnt show up (very likely), that makes Deathgazer top 8. He's a good player, but I'm sure that some people lower in the rankings think they would have a decent chance if they were to play him, or would at least get some good experience from it. So I think he should be in the pools.

 

[rustediron]

I agree that the priority weightings I've given to generate my numbers are probably different from what Jolteon would want, but Jolteon seems to be prioritising giving mid-level players a bigger opportunity to get into the pro bracket far more than he should be. 8 places to fight for is more than enough, and who knows, if you do well you may even find yourself getting an auto-win position for the next tournament.

And there's also the unforgiving time-constraint that Jolteon seems to be ignoring; there's genuinely not enough time to do two brackets without significantly cutting down pool matches, and this can only be done by granting more auto-win positions (favours lower level players) or by reducing pool sizes and having more pools (favours mid-level players).

 

[Cheez]

Not necessarily, you just lower the amount of top players that go through per pool. Increasing the bracket size to 24 is another solution, yes, but Hugo was arguing for efficiency.

16 man bracket (both cases)

4 pools of 5 (top 1 goes through) - 40 sets.
4 pools of 6 (top 2 goes through) - 60 sets.

You tell me which is more time efficient.

I know top 8>top 4 time wise, I just said that. x_x

However, I will say that Hugo's 3rd point that he brought up (maximising the amount of potential people that can go through and having a balance) is a good point. But... that's kinda the same reason I'm arguing for top 4, lol.

im assuming you've put 12 through for 4 pools of 5 which would mean 3/4 of a bracket is pre determined, something ive already said twice is ridiculous >_>

im not denying it wouldnt save time coz it would, but it denies more people of fighting for bracket spots and general experience.

obviously it saves more time if you put more through but outweighing the bracket with people who've been put through without playing is just ridiculous...if you wanted to do that just put the top 16 into a bracket and then run everyone else as a side tournament

also swizzy, i dont think people are plucking numbers out of no where, but we are looking for the numbers we want to see, which makes sense coz its how we think it should work, everyone would do that without thinking, you form an opinion and then back it up. but in essence i agree that if you want something different, you keep looking to find numbers (and reasons) that support your case

 

[Jolteon]

That's the conclusion I came into, read my edit lol.

Swizzy - fair enough, you probably know more about it than I do.

im assuming you've put 12 through for 4 pools of 5 which would mean 3/4 of a bracket is pre determined, something ive already said twice is ridiculous >_>

im not denying it wouldnt save time coz it would, but it denies more people of fighting for bracket spots and general experience.

obviously it saves more time if you put more through but outweighing the bracket with people who've been put through without playing is just ridiculous...if you wanted to do that just put the top 16 into a bracket and then run everyone else as a side tournament

I personally think putting 8 through is ridiculous, let alone 12! It was just an example of why 8 is not optimal for time efficiency (which I believed to be the primary basis of Hugo's point).

 

[SwizzyUK]

OK cool, as long as everyone knows they are arguing opinions.

I think priority should be given to motivating mid-level players, so you need people like Deathgazer and Tamoo in pools for the experience.

 

[Cheez]

I personally think putting 8 through is ridiculous, let alone 12! It was just an example of why 8 is not optimal for time efficiency (which I believed to be the primary basis of Hugo's point).

fair enough i guess if you're arguing for times sake, but on a realistic note, im glad we agree that anything over 8 is ridiculous.

personally i would say 4, but im not overly objected to 8 as it helps the time factor without compramising the tournament too much imo

 

[Jolteon]

fair enough i guess if you're arguing for times sake, but on a realistic note, im glad we agree that anything over 8 is ridiculous.

personally i would say 4, but im not overly objected to 8 as it helps the time factor without compramising the tournament too much imo

Yeah I dunno, 8 going through is like woooah when I think about it, especially since dgazer/j3y etc. are nowhere near as good as prof/va/fuzz/edwin who are the only people who really deserve it.

I agree that the priority weightings I've given to generate my numbers are probably different from what Jolteon would want, but Jolteon seems to be prioritising giving mid-level players a bigger opportunity to get into the pro bracket far more than he should be. 8 places to fight for is more than enough, and who knows, if you do well you may even find yourself getting an auto-win position for the next tournament.

And there's also the unforgiving time-constraint that Jolteon seems to be ignoring; there's genuinely not enough time to do two brackets without significantly cutting down pool matches, and this can only be done by granting more auto-win positions (favours lower level players) or by reducing pool sizes and having more pools (favours mid-level players).

We've ran a brawl tournament before with 4 setups and done just fine. fyi I've also fully finished an entire brawl event with about 10 set ups (with doubles) in about 3 hours, time is not as big of an issue as you might think.

 

[rustediron]

I just feel that even if we did top 4 over top 8, we'd have exactly the same results, and would have wasted too much time to finish the tourn :S

It also gives 4 clear-cut positions that people want to be in which are all of a decent size:

8 people: auto-win tier aka pro tier - Prof, Fuzz, VA, Edwin, Smakis etc
8 people: other pro bracket peepz aka high tier - Jolteon, L-J, Crabman, AD, Gantz etc.
8 people: high seeds of amateur bracket aka mid tier - Unreal, Bishkin, Beast etc.
'the dregs' (lol) aka low tier - anyone worse than GM_Jack (inclusive)

These tiers are going to be in a constant state of flux, so there's a huge incentive for everyone to try to break into the tier above

 

[Cheez]

Yeah I dunno, 8 going through is like woooah when I think about it, especially since dgazer/j3y etc. are nowhere near as good as prof/va/fuzz/edwin who are the only people who really deserve it.

yh i can kinda agree with that, like those 4 would definitely get through their pools, but with top 8 you can always get upsets, like with swizzy using pools to warm up (just an example) potential for a decent player to win, and yh, id agree, they're not guaranteed pool winners.

if you were confident that you could run doubles, the amateur and pro bracket in the time then i would say 4 auto spots every time, coz those are the only real matches with as close to guaranteed results as you can get.

 

[Jolteon]

I just feel that even if we did top 4 over top 8, we'd have exactly the same results, and would have wasted too much time to finish the tourn :S

It also gives 4 clear-cut positions that people want to be in which are all of a decent size:

8 people: auto-win tier aka pro tier - Prof, Fuzz, VA, Edwin, Smakis etc
8 people: other pro bracket peepz aka high tier - Jolteon, L-J, Crabman, AD, Gantz etc.
8 people: high seeds of amateur bracket aka mid tier - Unreal, Bishkin, Beast etc.
'the dregs' (lol) aka low tier - anyone worse than GM_Jack (inclusive)

I'm 90% sure we will have similar results either way, but it's just a poor way to run a tournament by assuming what people will get and having half the bracket full before you even begin pools. That's a lot of spots taken, 25% on the other hand I feel would give us enough time to finish.

yh i can kinda agree with that, like those 4 would definitely get through their pools, but with top 8 you can always get upsets, like with swizzy using pools to warm up (just an example) potential for a decent player to win, and yh, id agree, they're not guaranteed pool winners.

if you were confident that you could run doubles, the amateur and pro bracket in the time then i would say 4 auto spots every time, coz those are the only real matches with as close to guaranteed results as you can get.

I'm fairly confident we can, I'm going to be seriously on people's ***** at this event and making sure they play their games (I had a lot on my mind at GT4 and didn't put in much effort) and Charles hopefully will as well since he understands the situation we have with the lack of TVs.

 

[Cheez]

I'm 90% sure we will have similar results either way, but it's just a poor way to run a tournament by assuming what people will get and having half the bracket full before you even begin pools. That's a lot of spots taken, 25% on the other hand I feel would give us enough time to finish.

this i agree with totally if the time is taken out of the equation as thats always the issue we have.

frugs- that system of "tiers" can still be put in place but just narrow the top tier and widen the one below it as i dont personally think anyone deserves to be in the same tier as the top 4

 

[rustediron]

I'm 90% sure we will have similar results either way, but it's just a poor way to run a tournament by assuming what people will get and having half the bracket full before you even begin pools. That's a lot of spots taken, 25% on the other hand I feel would give us enough time to finish.

I also feel that, while for the first tourn it might seem a little unfair, from the first tourn onwards you can prove whoever has that auto-win doesn't deserve it by beating the **** out of him and stealing his position which I also feel is a huge incentive for people to try and place better :S

If it's just Fuzz, VA, Prof, and Edwin, however, we're still going to have the attitude we have now where people just give up.

 

[Jolteon]

I also feel that, while for the first tourn it might seem a little unfair, from the first tourn onwards you can prove whoever has that auto-win doesn't deserve it by beating the **** out of him and stealing his position which I also feel is a huge incentive for people to try and place better :S

If it's just Fuzz, VA, Prof, and Edwin, however, we're still going to have the attitude we have now where people just give up.

Hopefully we won't need a long-term answer to time restraints for very long (when the tv issue is fixed), in which case it's back to VA's initial recommendation of doing it for an enhanced tournament experience.

I agree that it's Just fuzz/va/prof/edwin, that's why I'm recommending top 4.

There's one other large flaw with using top 8, and that's that while the extra 4 would make the event run quicker, they are simply not good enough for us to assume that they would 2-0 everyone in their pool (and if we're not assuming that, they're simply not good enough to automatically go through).

e.g: Deathgazer has been a popular recommendation for the top 8. I don't know how many people remember, but at GT4 Deathgazer was sent into loser's bracket fairly quickly by Brado, a player who does not do nearly as well on a nationwide scale and is definitely not top 8 material.

In other words, I feel that we do not have 8 players who can consistently defeat everyone else.

 

[gm jack]

'the dregs' (lol) aka low tier - anyone worse than GM_Jack (inclusive)

I've been beating you solidly last few times I played you. Hugo for trash tier.

 

[rustediron]

I've been beating you solidly last few times I played you. Hugo for trash tier.

Pics or it didn't happen! ;D

 

[Fuzzyness]

i wanna do 8

next time we can do 4/8 again it depends, but I dont think im gonna keep doing brawl at these monthlies since my interest is out of the window :/ none of the brawlers even talk to me lol

right now we got lack of t.vs and anything that saves time to me in a win win >_>

you're whining about 1/2 people in 8 people go through lol. It's nothing thats gonna affect too much tbh cause they'll get through anyway if its gonna be 4 pools of 6, assuming top 2 go through

the seeds will be done fairly anyway ensuring the ones who dont deserve it as much get harder matchups

 

[rustediron]

Hopefully we won't need a long-term answer to time restraints for very long (when the tv issue is fixed), in which case it's back to VA's initial recommendation of doing it for an enhanced tournament experience.

I agree that it's Just fuzz/va/prof/edwin, that's why I'm recommending top 4.

There's one other large flaw with using top 8, and that's that while the extra 4 would make the event run quicker, they are simply not good enough for us to assume that they would 2-0 everyone in their pool (and if we're not assuming that, they're simply not good enough to automatically go through).

e.g: Deathgazer has been a popular recommendation for the top 8. I don't know how many people remember, but at GT4 Deathgazer was sent into loser's bracket fairly quickly by Brado, a player who does not do nearly as well on a nationwide scale and is definitely not top 8 material.

In other words, I feel that we do not have 8 players who can consistently defeat everyone else.

If you think deathgazer doesn't deserve it, then beat him, lol. All it is, is a little reward for doing so well at the previous tourn (though for this one I guess it can't really be seen that way lol)

 

[Jolteon]

i wanna do 8

next time we can do 4/8 again it depends, but I dont think im gonna keep doing brawl at these monthlies since my interest is out of the window :/ none of the brawlers even talk to me lol

If brawl is to be exempt at later events then it should definitely be 4 (no time constraints).

In which case, we would be doing top 8 for one event, which is pointless (people do not have a chance to claim a top 8 spot for the next event, meaning that 25% of the bracket placements are given away unnecessarily).

Unless you don't feel that we could finish it with only 4?... In that case, fair enough.

If you think deathgazer doesn't deserve it, then beat him, lol. All it is, is a little reward for doing so well at the previous tourn (though for this one I guess it can't really be seen that way lol)

In the example I have given, said person did beat him. Regardless of that it still achieves him NOTHING since he does not do as well as Deathgazer does vs everyone else. Is that really fair, for you to beat someone in the top 8 and to not have the same privilege they do?

 

[rustediron]

i wanna do 8

next time we can do 4/8 again it depends, but I dont think im gonna keep doing brawl at these monthlies since my interest is out of the window :/ none of the brawlers even talk to me lol

right now we got lack of t.vs and anything that saves time to me in a win win >_>

you're whining about 1/2 people in 8 people go through lol. It's nothing thats gonna affect too much tbh cause they'll get through anyway if its gonna be 4 pools of 6, assuming top 2 go through

the seeds will be done fairly anyway ensuring the ones who dont deserve it as much get harder matchups

I think we definitely could get rid of brawl until we have our TVs back, their monetary input isn't significant enough to offset the fact that they take half our (markedly few) available setups :S

 

[Fuzzyness]

why would it be pointless? I say we should start our new system fresh and stop all these excuses.

Wherever you place determines if you will get that spot

We should forget about all the past tournaments cause this one will be important

 

[rustediron]

In the example I have given, said person did beat him. Regardless of that it still achieves him NOTHING since he does not do as well as Deathgazer does vs everyone else. Is that really fair, for you to beat someone in the top 8 and to not have the same privilege they do?

Yeah but that was prolly just deathgazer being a 'tard for a set, Brado lost to X1-12 straight after that :S
I mean that's why we play double elim, isn't it? So you don't gayed out by someone who happens to be able to beat you occasionally but doesn't do well against anyone else :S

 

[Jolteon]

why would it be pointless? I say we should start our new system fresh and stop all these excuses.

Wherever you place determines if you will get that spot

We should forget about all the past tournaments cause this one will be important

It's pointless because we have no time constraints with Brawl AND we don't have 8 players who are consistent enough

Yeah but that was prolly just deathgazer being a 'tard for a set, Brado lost to X1-12 straight after that :S
I mean that's why we play double elim, isn't it? So you don't gayed out by someone who happens to be able to beat you occasionally but doesn't do well against anyone else :S

That's my point, Brad doesn't do as well as dgazer does vs everyone else (dgazer prob would have beaten x1-12), but Brado took the solution you're suggesting by beating dgazer.

Double elim? The point is he beat dgazer lol.

Also, you want other examples?

I beat tamoo last time we played 3-0
swizzy lost to wiggum
I lost to fortunecookie in pools at gt4

We only have 4 people who are good enough to be rewarded with bracket spots.

/e Me and Charles talked and think top 6 (for this event) works best. Other events should just be top 4 cause of no Brawl. j3ly/smakis going through as well seems acceptable, it's just afterwards where it gets too hazy to tell.

 

[Fuzzyness]

just like to say this tournament for melee singles

6 People automatically go to Bracket

Fuzzyness
Professor Pro
Vanity Angel
Retroking
J3ly
Smakis

fight for the other 10 spots

5 Pools! Top 2 go through each

 

[Tamoo]

Charles why dyou want top 8? I just really wanna play some pools games lol

Alex: Haha you have no idea how much that set motivated me Spent so long analysing hbox amsah lol, god damn thank god jiggs has a crouch

Also I don't think swizzy did lose to wiggum, only one game in the set, I remember elliot tried to gay him by cping floats but lost :/


Edit: Yeah Charles sounds good, lets do that


Edit2: Wait, damn isn't a cencored word anymore? bout time really

 

[Brado]

Hugo **** you I won fair you didn't watch the set -_-

/riding win

 

[Jolteon]

Charles why dyou want top 8? I just really wanna play some pools games lol

Alex: Haha you have no idea how much that set motivated me Spent so long analysing hbox amsah lol, god damn thank god jiggs has a crouch

Also I don't think swizzy did lose to wiggum, only one game in the set, I remember elliot tried to gay him by cping floats but lost :/

**** that crouch.

oh fair enough, I just heard wiggum telling me that he won with falco against him lol. still though I believe it proves that we don't have enough consistent people for top 8 to work.

 

[L-J]

Having read this thread through my personal opinion is that only top 4 should go through automatically to bracket. There isn't any specific reasoning behind this, just my gut feeling as to what's fair and what's right. This should still save some time and save the top 4 from playing pointless pool games which are guaranteed 2-0s. Beyond top 4 I don't see pointless pool matches and therefore they should be in pools. I realise there are legit arguments for it being top 8 rather than top 4 but my gut feeling is top 4 not top 8.

EDIT: just read Fuzz's post - this seems like a good compromise so I approve of this system.

 

[Kill The Beast]

Jolteon i think this is the first time I've flamed on boards but you really are being an idiot about this.

ignore the time constraint bull**** the point of this is to make the UK scene more competitive.
can you not see that having a top 8 means that potentially 4 of the places are up for the taking, it gives people something to aim for, then fight to keep once they have it.

if you have a top 4 then since no one defeated any on in the top 4 for ages it means there are 0 places up for the taking giving people no motivation to do better and keep there spot because nothing will change.

the "good enough" is based purely on what they got last time. that is where the competitive aspect comes in. your just mad at the moment because its people picking the top 8.

how can you not understand this?

edit: I don't like top 6 but as long as its top 8 from the next and its the top 8 from this event who get the places, then it dose not really matter.
jolteon having just written this then I was the idiot if you where happy about top 8 after this tourney once we have an 8 to go from.

 

[WaagOne]

I agree with an earlier point which says that there should be 4 tiers. As you progress down the tiers they overlap more as there is greater chance's for upsets to occur.

The top 4 have a near impossible chance of a suffering from a tard match as they are well pros and so they should be in their own tier.

So the question is, how are the other tiers constructed and maintained? I think they should be split into further divisions of 4 to keep them competitive and boost incentive to progress up the rankings.

In the event that someone loses to someone else who is in a lower tier, they should be rewarded by being given more points relative to the number of tiers above their opponent is, again providing more incentive.

This doesn't necessarily mean that they are better, as stated before its how well you do against the community that defines your place not how well you do against a person.

This totalitarian state ruled by the fuzz needs his divine judgement for any law to be past apparently. Although were given this illusion of democracy through our discussion its him who has the final say.

I think there should be a poll on this matter as it seems to affect everyone taking part in a future tourney. The previous results from the past year are important as they provide all of the facts and evidence in unbiased numbers.

As with all systems there are flaws but unless we actively and continuously try to shape them, there will be no progression. Experimentation is the road to progress but only if something is done and not just discussed.

I agree with his top 6 idea for this tourney though seems about right, don't worry I'm gonna fight for those last 10 places .

Is it to early for MM hype who wants some bring it, grow a pair and play me. (No top 4 though I don't feel like getting senselessly ***** gotta learn more first before I start those shenanigans)

 

[B.Mack]

but I dont think im gonna keep doing brawl at these monthlies since my interest is out of the window :/ none of the brawlers even talk to me lol

I still got love for you charles??

you left the SmashUK msn...

I mean, sure we have Look Pimpin and Checkmate and GP's priestrape tournies, but that doesnt mean we dont love you anymore...

 

[Fuzzyness]

no offense, its just not fun hosting for a game you dont care about. Not saying I dont care about the people :/

right now I lack the equipment I used to own as well as its just a huge hassle

I used to have at least 8 t.vs for each game :/ before SNY

I dont even have my amp, its in birmingham ~_~

 

[Professor Pro]

looool Didn't you go through this already Fuzzy and then were like 'I'm going in to dept *cry* now I have to get brawl back since i'm not making enough for the venue' and now you're going for a round 2 of it lol.

When is Kone going to bring the TV's back since it's holding back London's events and the community developing by not having enough TV's.

Also quitting brawl because you don't enjoy it is silly.....it's not like you're actually forced to play it one bit, all you do is put the TV's out and enter the names in the bracket at the beginning of the tournament....

I don't see why the dropping the entire game is needed but it's your choice, I look forward to round 2 of you complaining this incident, please make it snappy after the next event as well as I don't want to wait around for it

 

[Fuzzyness]

well I dont think im getting t.vs back anytime soon,

1) it costs money (or EFFORT)

2) theres no space for any more t.vs in the venue since they're all big

3) they need to be kept in birm for SNY

So I have to be harsh and this is my decision. People might have to pay an extra £1 to cover venue costs next time

so yeah.. melee will have 10 t.vs next time. Brawl is starting to go somewhere with other people now finally so people can complain and whine at me, but the original goal has happened to be fair


this time its gonna be a bit ****ty cause the 6 people won't get to play any friendlies or tourney matches once singles starts till brackets.

There will probably be no time for friendlies apart from near the end but thats when the big games happen

so yeah, take this as a serious monthly and treat it like a tournament

Next time we can be a bit more casual