SMYM 7 (Champaign, IL March 24)

[Tink]

but you made tink and forward in the same pool <_< 2 of the top 4, which, most people seen comming btw.

edit, also, i had the most points, just incase people say, "he had to go somewhere". it shouldnt have been mine, if it wasnt done randomly.

 

[forward]

This arguement is gonig no where >.<

Let's go back to talking about how great I am =D

 

[Husband]

Andy, lets just have a fist fight over it next time. Or a battle with swords!

 

[Dr. Steve Brule]

Steve--Go dig up the midwest point rankings. They are not so grossly inaccurate as you would have us believe. Or should we randomly seed pools, or not use pools at all and randomly seed a bracket?

1. Tink (99 pts)
2. Dope (83 pts)
3. Darkrain (80 pts)
4. D-rephen (64 pts)
5. KishPrime (57 pts)
6. KishSquared (37 pts)
7. Iggy (32pts)
8. JoeBushman111 (31 pts)

(and im talking about going in before people dropped out of attending)

heres some players that are better than some players on there
vidjo
b-ryan
trail

heres some players that are very close in skill
eddie
cunning
mikey l
jiano
many others

so yes, they are inaccurate as the largest factor was attendance. and if u say "thats just ur opinion, bro". i can guarantee other people agree w/ me.

Yes, sometimes you end up with a difficult pool and sometimes an easy one. The same thing can happen in brackets, only brackets are not as forgiving. And sometimes the seeding you get from brackets is somewhat inaccurate. But it's not "broken." What are you saying? What is the solution?

swiss seeding. done. no circuit points used for seeding either.

I don't know how you would expect the 2nd-round pools to have been seeded any more than they already were.

well i was talking about in a general situation with 4 people advancing. but if you want to talk about it, smym had 8 people who won their pools, and there was no way to seed them other than throw them in as such, which you guys did:
winner form pool 1 goes in 2nd round pool 1. winner from pool 2 goes to 2nd round pool 2. etc until you looped so 5th winner would go to 1st. that's awful.

And did something get lost at the beginning of your post?

ya it did. repost time:

i already posted this but w/e. lets say player x has a pool with players a, b, and c. player y has a pool with d, e, and f. here's a breakdown of each skill and matchup:

player x and y are equal in skill and are assumed 2nd best in pools
a = best in pool
b = bad
c = bad
d = best in pool
e = decent
f = bad

player x goes 2-0 on b and c, but gets 2-0'd by player a
player y goes 2-0 on f and gets 2-0'd by d, but player e is decent enough to take a match with his counterpick, so player y wins 2-1

player x and y are equal in skill, but because of imbalanced pools, and the fact that ties are broken with matches, player x moves on and y doesnt. that's broken.

Also your unnecessary and condescending explanation of how pools work

just providing thorough post, bro. chill.

And pools are seeded by skill all the time. Even if we had done it "randomly" we would have made adjustments so that darkrain and tink did not end up in the same pool. I don't know where you got the idea that arranging pools randomly is the only acceptable way to do it.

you cant do that. it's wrong and shows teh system is massive failure. you cant subjectively say "oh the system isn't working so ill just put player x in a diff pool." then what's the point of seeding honestly if you do it before hand? why not just hand pick people to be in teh bracket instead of wasting peoples time by hand picking them for pools?

 

[KishPrime]

I think that he actually did say it right.

Some of you don't understand what an unbalanced schedule is in sports. Every team plays a different schedule. The NFC East plays the AFC South, etc. Some teams inherently have harder schedules. Same with this.

Anyway, to Rick you're criticizing merely for the sake of criticizing at this point. The main reason I believe this is because you contradicted me on the "lesser of two evils" stuff and saying it was better to advance only one when beforehand everyone clearly wanted us to advance more people. Circuit points worked out well to circumvent attendance as a major factor due to points scaling.

Whether it's a death pool or a death bracket or a swiss screwing, the randomness you are talking about it unavoidable. Even in swiss it will happen. You are ultimately complaining about something that can't be fixed. No system is perfect. I am looking forward to your swiss experiments, but I am pretty sure you will still see the same thing. You have no better solution yet.

Also remember that your opinion of skill is just that, your opinion. B-Ryan was beaten by I believe five of the people on that list, including all three Ship members who you usually imply in not goodness. Facts are facts, and tournament placings are facts, and points are facts. Yes, points aren't perfect, but you're striving for perfection where there is none possible.

 

[Overswarm]

The best system is to move the top 4 on. This guarantees, regardless of the pools, that the good people move on. A few "non good" people will move on, but mostly just good people, even if the pools are crazy off balance.

That takes a lot of time, so the second best system is to obviously move top 2, but have a RR for the people who "tie" in set wins, and then the top X move on from there. This doesn't take nearly as much time as the top 4, but still takes time.

The next best system is to have the top 2 move on, and to automatically choose who moves on by this order:

Set wins, Game wins, Game losses, Circuit Points

It would be very, very rare to have a tie and a one-game or one-set tiebreaker could solve that. Or rock paper scissors.


It's more of an issue of time, if nothing else. The wildcard system isn't going to be implemented again, so most of the issues with this format will be gone to begin with.

But why is it that people are so astonished at having losses count against you? Have people been babied that much through smash tournaments? Your losses count, if that's such a big problem, don't lose. If other people don't lose a game, but you do, shouldn't they be rewarded?

i already posted this but w/e. lets say player x has a pool with players a, b, and c. player y has a pool with d, e, and f. here's a breakdown of each skill and matchup:

player x and y are equal in skill and are assumed 2nd best in pools
a = best in pool
b = bad
c = bad
d = best in pool
e = decent
f = bad

player x goes 2-0 on b and c, but gets 2-0'd by player a
player y goes 2-0 on f and gets 2-0'd by d, but player e is decent enough to take a match with his counterpick, so player y wins 2-1

player x and y are equal in skill, but because of imbalanced pools, and the fact that ties are broken with matches, player x moves on and y doesnt. that's broken.

My eyes have been opened! I totally forgot about that time when the two smash players with the exact same skill level played in that one tournament and only one moved on!

That's just theorycraft, sir. No two smash players are completely even. There are ways that we can make pools more even, but a lot of them take a long, long time to do (such as doing it by hand). If you can't live up to the challenge, you get knocked out. Only the top 3 get paid money, and by that time it wouldn't have mattered because player X and Y would have both been knocked out, since apparently neither of them could 2-0 player E.

 

[KishPrime]

Hey guys, I'm gonna have to cut off this discussion. It's quickly degrading into people repeating their arguments over and over, and there's no point. This thread will probably be closed soon.

If you want to continue discussing this, please move it to a thread in the Melee Discussion. As of now, go back to telling Forward how awesome he is.

 

[Overswarm]

Forward gave me a new irritating counter-pick stage.

Falco on Jungle Japes FTW!

 

[Dr. Steve Brule]

The best system is to move the top 4 on. This guarantees, regardless of the pools, that the good people move on. A few "non good" people will move on, but mostly just good people, even if the pools are crazy off balance.

That takes a lot of time, so the second best system is to obviously move top 2, but have a RR for the people who "tie" in set wins, and then the top X move on from there. This doesn't take nearly as much time as the top 4, but still takes time.

The next best system is to have the top 2 move on, and to automatically choose who moves on by this order:

Set wins, Game wins, Game losses, Circuit Points

It would be very, very rare to have a tie and a one-game or one-set tiebreaker could solve that. Or rock paper scissors.

ORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR ORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR just do swiss seeding and its done.

But why is it that people are so astonished at having losses count against you? Have people been babied that much through smash tournaments? Your losses count, if that's such a big problem, don't lose. If other people don't lose a game, but you do, shouldn't they be rewarded?

no, because teh person you lost 1 match to could be far better than the person someone else 2-0'd in another pool that you could probably 2-0 as well. that = unfair system. and ya, calling people "babies" because they dont want to use a broken system anymore is instant failure on a massive scale.

My eyes have been opened! I totally forgot about that time when the two smash players with the exact same skill level played in that one tournament and only one moved on!

That's just theorycraft, sir. No two smash players are completely even. There are ways that we can make pools more even, but a lot of them take a long, long time to do (such as doing it by hand). If you can't live up to the challenge, you get knocked out. Only the top 3 get paid money, and by that time it wouldn't have mattered because player X and Y would have both been knocked out, since apparently neither of them could 2-0 player E.

1. even if player y was better than player x, its very possible he could have a game knocked off of him from the decent players counterpicks. especially if it's a homosexual level like green greens etc. so its not theorycraft, because it was PROVEN at smym.

2. so let me get this straight. you just said that it doesnt matter if something is broken resulting in someone not moving on............ because in the end they wont get money? that's saying "this game is all about money". news 4 u: its not. people like to play for competition, otherwise, no one would enter tourneys at all with the attitude "OH WELL IM NOT GONNA GET TOP 3 SO WHO CARES RITE????". and when the competition sucks because of a sucky system, we (smashers) try to change it.

 

[AlphaZealot]

This thread is dragging on. I'll let it stay open for a little while longer to iron out the finer points in everyones arguements, but it can't keep floating in here.

Now I'm just repeating myself. If it was solely on game wins, then how come second place with X wins and one loss didn't advance, but second place with X wins and no loss did? That's where it's being flawed.

All other factors being equal, why wouldn't you advance the player who DIDN'T lose that one match. That being said, I do agree with you, but I can see the logic both ways.

Pools can easily be opperated using a point system, where 1 point = 1 game win. This mostly produces accurate results but can sometimes run into problems.

Player A: 6-0
Player B: 4-2
Player C: 2-4
Player D: 0-6

This would be the ideal results.

But lets say player D manages to win one game against the A, B, and C. He now has 3 points and thrusts himself over player C despite having never won a set. The question comes into then, does the fact that he can take a game from both A and B have prove that he is better than player C who can not accomplish the same feet (and also had a close set with player D)? This is a rare problem and it really comes down to opinion I think. You are never penalized for losing a match though, at least in the top 2 positions. It is impossible for a player who goes (in this case) 2-1 in sets to be overtaken by a player lower than him based on game wins (because that creates a tie, in which case you just break it in the head to head match up and the player with the more set wins won the head to head). I believe it is also impossible for a player who goes 6-1 (in sets) in an 8 person pool to be overtaken by someone lower than him based on single game wins (because a person lower than him can at most have 2 extra points, meaning he will only have enough to TIE the 2nd position person, and will ultimately lose because of head to head comparisons).

In the rare event of a 3 way tie I would have them replay things in RR format until a winner emerges. This could take awhile, but it will eventually happen, I saw it happen between Fonz, Greg and I think a player named Phoenix, the tie was broken after just one addition RR between the 3 of them.

 

[Dr. Steve Brule]

Hey guys, I'm gonna have to cut off this discussion. It's quickly degrading into people repeating their arguments over and over, and there's no point. This thread will probably be closed soon.

If you want to continue discussing this, please move it to a thread in the Melee Discussion. As of now, go back to telling Forward how awesome he is.

no its not prime. new arguements have been brought up every post. you seem to do this everytime people have an arguement over something you were involved in it needs to stop. im not posting in melee discussion. im posting RIGHT HERE.

 

[Tapion013]

All other things being equal, 2-0 a better performance than 2-1? Or does that loss mean nothing?

If it doesn't mean anything in the bracket, it shouldn't mean anything in the pools. Person A can go 2-1 to everybody in a tournament and get first place. Person B can go 2-0 against everyone in a tournament and win. Meanwhile, at other tourneys Person A always beats person B 2-1. Person A ALWAYS loses one match because of terrible counter picking, but he always wins the set, and always wins the tournaments. Person A would be considered the better play right?

You should go by sets. with a tournament that has as many entrants as SMYM has, you should make other ways of compensating for time.

Some of you don't understand what an unbalanced schedule is in sports. Every team plays a different schedule. The NFC East plays the AFC South, etc. Some teams inherently have harder schedules. Same with this.

Professional sports are not comparable to wild card that was held for smash. The wild cards in sports are picked after the teams have played everybody, and they're only picked from that division/league/conference. In football, two wild cards are sent from each conference (or pool) and in baseball, one wildcard is picked from each league (or pool). These wildcards are usually complete standouts, especially in baseball, but they also all play each other. BIG difference!

Yes, points aren't perfect, but you're striving for perfection where there is none possible.

Perfection is possible if you dedicate the time to it. Otherwise you have to do the best you can, which IMO (yes, just my opinion) you didn't do. Granted none of the people that were knocked out early would've won money, but most of those people go to try and place as high as possible, not get screwed out of a placing they actually deserved. I know at SMYM6, both marth 1 and I deserved a spot in the top 32, but because we were both in the same pool with jiano and dope, that didn't happen. At least top two advanced though (that's not sarcasm)

All other factors being equal, why wouldn't you advance the player who DIDN'T lose that one match. That being said, I do agree with you, but I can see the logic both ways.

First off, AZ, just gonna say I really liked your post. You actually took the time to put in an example.

Edit: (didn't save for somereason) but you shouldn't punish someone who's in a completely different pool for losing one game, but having the same amount of set wins.

But lets say player D manages to win one game against the A, B, and C. He now has 3 points and thrusts himself over player C despite having never won a set. The question comes into then, does the fact that he can take a game from both A and B have prove that he is better than player C who can not accomplish the same feet (and also had a close set with player D)?

No, because player D could not scrape together a full set win, meaning he was the worst player out of the pool. Winning the full set means you beat that player, not winning a game, which is why only going by set wins (not including tiebreakers)is the proper way to go. With a two way tie, you go head to head, three way tie, you go total wins (you do not count losses) and if that's a tie, you have to do a round robin which you stated later. This really is the most fair way to do it, and I'm glad you agree and stated it.

 

[Dr. Steve Brule]

Anyway, to Rick you're criticizing merely for the sake of criticizing at this point. The main reason I believe this is because you contradicted me on the "lesser of two evils" stuff and saying it was better to advance only one when beforehand everyone clearly wanted us to advance more people. Circuit points worked out well to circumvent attendance as a major factor due to points scaling.

hindsight is 20/20, and there is no john for it. i was wrong first time around. now i see my error and am looking to change it instead of stubbornly rejecting my mistake.

Whether it's a death pool or a death bracket or a swiss screwing, the randomness you are talking about it unavoidable. Even in swiss it will happen. You are ultimately complaining about something that can't be fixed. No system is perfect. I am looking forward to your swiss experiments, but I am pretty sure you will still see the same thing. You have no better solution yet.

if you can show a REASON to back that up i'd accept it. but there isn't any. whatever randomness that is in play only accounts for early rounds. and it is entirely possible for that person to climb up to get a spot for brackets. with pools that is impossible.

Also remember that your opinion of skill is just that, your opinion. B-Ryan was beaten by I believe five of the people on that list, including all three Ship members who you usually imply in not goodness. Facts are facts, and tournament placings are facts, and points are facts. Yes, points aren't perfect, but you're striving for perfection where there is none possible.

tournament attendance is also a fact. a fact that hurts the circuit points for seeding arguement. so dont try to pull the "facts" talking point on me.

 

[DYC]

A playoff would be redundant in a 3-way tie. I would break THAT by looking at game wins and losses, and if there were still a tie, circuit points (if there were any), and after that, uhm, rock-paper-scissors?

He was talking about a complete 3-way tie. where wins and losses were all equal.

The only redundant thing about it was your post Andy. =P

And in that case Husband the only thing you COULD do was have a 3-way playoff and hope a match ended differently.

 

[Ignatius]

But wasn't that the exact goal of the points to begin with? To increase attendance at all of the events, and reward those that actually did go to all of them?

Looking at your list of players, I want to say B-ryan and Trail went to every event, and placed near what I had placed at every event. I was tied with Bryan in points till I beat him at Smym and pulled ahead. I do agree that Vidjo should have been top 8, but he only went to 2 events, and... I thought he got second at cok, maybe Im wrong. And 5thish at smym. Trail is good but he gets countered by some players which is what tends to stop him in bracket play, and why he didnt have the points to be in the top 8.

The top 4 are still about as accurate as you can get, which is what AOB meant when he said they aren't as grossly inaccurate as you think.

 

[KishPrime]

Honestly, yes they are the same arguments over and over, and even AZ, who you seem to respect more, said the same thing.

I'm pretty sure we were clear that we are interested in seeing swiss at SMYM, so there's no need to keep hammering it until you test it. I'm honestly getting sick of all the fighting and don't really care anymore on that basis alone. We agreed with many of the flaws you pointed out, and instead of proposing corrections, you guys are taking potshots at us personally, suggesting that we weren't doing the best we can with the time we had, with absolutely no alternative, then calling me out personally trying to suggest I am just trying to shut you up. I EVEN SAID I WOULD TAKE ANY SUGGESTIONS FOR OTHER BRACKETS AT SMYM AND SHOW YOU HOW LONG THEY WOULD TAKE. I even explicitly showed you how long swiss would take at SMYM, and how it was not an option. We have agreed with many of the flaws you have pointed out, and yet you still are not providing a better alternative that actually works other than to say "swiss duh" over and over again, WHICH WOULDN'T HAVE WORKED AT SMYM.

I'm really not feeling like anyone even wants us around anymore. Maybe it's time to get out of the way. If I'm not doing anything good anymore for the community I just won't waste my time or your time.

EDIT: Also you still don't understand unbalanced schedules. Oh well.

 

[Tapion013]

We have agreed with many of the flaws you have pointed out, and yet you still are not providing a better alternative that actually works other than to say "swiss duh" over and over again

What about my suggestions? About lowering it to three stock, and setting the time limit to 5 (maybe even 4?) minutes instead of 8 so less camping can happen?

 

[Drephen]

prime said stop talking about it, so stop talking

shoutouts

COK
mathos - everytime we passed into a new state i thought of you........sigh
watty - dont worry buddy your time will shine, just keep practicing
frenziefool - im gonna touch your *****
joe - didnt go, not gonna read this =(

Team Ben
Husband - i touched your *****
Wife - good **** in brackets, you shoulda of stayed and tore **** up but whatever
Oro - Too good versus falco, i need mroe experience against kirby

People who trashed my house, my roomates yelled at me and is gonna take a while to convince them to have people stay over again

dope - step it up
joel - love your style of shiek, too good in teams
mikey - agressive as hell, just think before you do some things and you will be unbeatable
trail - **** you, you **** all my characters up

kishprime - still scared of ya, **** pokefloats
kishsquared - **** pokefloats
iggy - too good in teams
joshu - real men lick even if it hurts

wuwu - i'll be ready for ya next time, improved so much, good job
tink - ****ing ugly *** loser you suck balls at this game
big c - you make me feel bad about myself
cunning - you never fought watty
viperboy - you always get depressed at tournies, love you, cheer up
AOB - herbal essence

ihavespaceballs - i have too much samus practice
chad- pikachu is gay

dmac - you need a cold shower
darkrain - DARKRAIN! DARKRAIN! ****ing gay

jiano - when a lieutenant tells you do something, you do it
kel - marth getting hella good
vidjo - you suckkkkkkkkkkkk

forward - you prolly having sex with darkrain right now, nice short friendlies we had

l love azen

man, im just gonna stick to east coast tournies where the marths, shieks, and foxes are.

 

[KishPrime]

What about my suggestions? About lowering it to three stock, and setting the time limit to 5 (maybe even 4?) minutes instead of 8 so less camping can happen?

lol...we've done it all before. People get angry no matter what. Maybe they would be less angry, but we didn't know that, so we tried something new. Now they're still angry.

 

[Tapion013]

lol...we've done it all before. People get angry no matter what. Maybe they would be less angry, but we didn't know that, so we tried something new. Now they're still angry.

*shrugs* I dunno, but I just think (and I think looking back you do too) that you could've done something better. Personally I think what you did for SMYM6 was the best choice (even though i did get screwed over, I have nothing against how it was ran). This wild card stuff though... didn't expect that. I respect you trying new things just to see how it goes just incase we hit the jackpot with a method, but I hope you can at least understand how some people felt screwed at this tournament.

 

[HoChiMinhTrail]

i think people are still letting emotion get in the way of logic.... cunning and i got froed in the pools for teams but... we could of gotten one more win in a set and easily made it past such a pool.

just because you dont make it out of a pool due to a technicality, which you had control over anywase.... doesnt mean the system is at fault....

 

[Overswarm]

What about my suggestions? About lowering it to three stock, and setting the time limit to 5 (maybe even 4?) minutes instead of 8 so less camping can happen?

This effectively hurts characters such as peach, whose stock generally last longer than, say, Falco's. Lowering the time limit would also be the single most greivous mistake you could make in the midwest.

Would you REALLY wnat only FOUR minutes to get around Overswarm running around with lasers? Camping is currently a legitimate strategy, but never wins when the other player is at an extremely high skill level. If the time limit was lowered to 4, Camping would be much more effective because there would be less time to take that stock off of the player who is just racking up your damage.

Even legit games would be decided more by the timer than by anything else.

Your suggestion would work if there was just a HUGE number of people, but seems a little drastic with what we've got.




Does anyone have a (recent) tournament that has used swiss seeding successfully? It seems like it would take slightly longer. The reason pool is so much faster than brackets is because everything is already set up. Swiss would certainly be more "fair" than a random bracket or a halfway seeded bracket (put in two good people then randoms), but the main issue is time.

If we had the time, it would just be one giant round robin.

 

[KishPrime]

I understand why people feel screwed. Doesn't mean they actually were, which is all I'm trying to say. It's like Trail says, emotion vs. logic. Needless to say, no more wildcard. I don't think people would've complained if it were just like all the others...lol. That's what we get.

 

[Tapion013]

Would you REALLY wnat only FOUR minutes to get around Overswarm running around with lasers?

a better question is how many minutes less than that do i actually need :-P

Camping is currently a legitimate strategy, but never wins when the other player is at an extremely high skill level. If the time limit was lowered to 4, Camping would be much more effective because there would be less time to take that stock off of the player who is just racking up your damage.

Most four stock matches even with camping last around 4 and a half to 5 minutes. with 3 stock that gets cut down drastically not just because of the stock, but also because of the mindsets the players get in when going down 2 stock to 3 instead of 3 stock to 4. The games will naturally move faster.

Even legit games would be decided more by the timer than by anything else.

The lowering of the time limit idea was mainly to stop stalling or extreme camping (Watch DSF vs Isai on Jungle Japes from MLG for what I'm talking about).

Your suggestion would work if there was just a HUGE number of people, but seems a little drastic with what we've got.

Lowering the stock and the time limit (Notice I actually suggested five minutes, you apparently only acknowledged four) really isn't that big of a deal. As a huge camper I guess you're used to games lasting forever, but I know my matches, no matter who I'm playing against (camper or not, samus or peach, or even if I'm not falcon) last less than 4 minutes, and that's 4 stock.

I understand why people feel screwed. Doesn't mean they actually were, which is all I'm trying to say. It's like Trail says, emotion vs. logic. Needless to say, no more wildcard. I don't think people would've complained if it were just like all the others...lol. That's what we get.

I really don't think people would've complained, but I also don't think it was too bad of an idea to at least try something knew. Big business do it all the time, some are huge successes, some flop. Trial and error, live and learn.

 

[Overswarm]

I understand why people feel screwed. Doesn't mean they actually were, which is all I'm trying to say. It's like Trail says, emotion vs. logic. Needless to say, no more wildcard. I don't think people would've complained if it were just like all the others...lol. That's what we get.

Brawl is going to be three time the size of Melee as far as tournament attendance goes, so trying this stuff out now is a good thing. As soon as I can find a reliable and not ultra expensive venue somewhere near I live, I'm going to be hosting tournaments and you are doing much of the experimenting for me

 

[Sliq]

I don't care how the tournaments are run, I just want to get to play a lot of people without having them sandbag against you. Nothing makes you feel like a massive ****head than to beat someone, be all psyched about it, and realize they were sandbagging...making a big deal out of nothing.

Thanks to all those who took the time to set this tourney up and run it. You did a better job than I could. And I'm ********.

 

[KishPrime]

I really don't think people would've complained, but I also don't think it was too bad of an idea to at least try something knew. Big business do it all the time, some are huge successes, some flop. Trial and error, live and learn.

Woo...that's what we've been saying.

Oh well, I think this is pretty much a concluded discussion. We know what worked and what did not. People's emotions are just as important to us as fair play and all that, and there's no way we'll ever advance by wild card again, even if it means advancing only one from a pool. We'll probably go back to limiting stock first if that's what will help soothe emotions.

I think the question of lowering the time limit is a good one. Six minutes is probably just as fair as eight, though it will do very little to actually decrease the amount of time being played. The problem is those Peach-Jiggly matchups that naturally take 5 and a half minutes even when both sides are playing aggressively.

 

[viperboy_74]

This arguement is gonig no where >.<

Let's go back to talking about how great I am =D

heh... forwards too good! <3

 

[HoChiMinhTrail]

lol trail laid down the justice on forward.

 

[AOB]

I would love to see Swiss work fine and dandy, but it takes much too long to do at a SMYM. Some people were complaining about the Swiss at GS2, although I don't remember what those complaints were.

I wonder if there would have been more or less complaining if we had only advanced one?

 

[Overswarm]

I would love to see Swiss work fine and dandy, but it takes much too long to do at a SMYM. Some people were complaining about the Swiss at GS2, although I don't remember what those complaints were.

I wonder if there would have been more or less complaining if we had only advanced one?

More. You'd have double the 2nd place finishers complaining.

BA DUM PSHHHH

 

[Dr. Steve Brule]

lol trail laid down the justice on forward.

with what character?

 

[Overswarm]

Ice Climbers.


AOB, did you (or anyone else) find a knife that says "Travis" and "Love Rosa" on it? It is my little brothers, it fell out of his pocket while he was sleeping and he left it on your basement floor. He was towards the back, a little bit to the left of the pool table.

 

[BlackPanther]

lol trail laid down the justice on forward.

Indeed. Forward got pooned lol.

 

[AlphaZealot]

I was hoping this thread would clear up faster...I'll continue to let it live but it's time is fast approaching.

I think this will be closed by thursday night, so hash out whatever final points you guys wanna make, its been a pretty good debate/discussion I think, but I think most of the more important aspects are starting to get repeated.

My personal opinion: 3 versus 4 stock is to big a differance. I would rather keep the sets 4 stock 8 minute time limit and go MLG style, where each person in pools gets one round of counter picks (so it is essentially a best of 2 set). This lets us strictly use the point system as well I think (at least where such an instance would matter, like the top 3 positions in a pool). This also cuts time in explaning the complicated ruleset to newbies and it will cut 8 minutes from each match, or 33% (roughly) of the time required for pools (so those 1 and half to 2 hour 8 person pools can be completed in 45 minutes to an hour and 15 or so).

Sets are vital for brackets though.

I've been to two swiss tournaments and they were each super fun, remember, the players who aren't really competing for the top 3-5 spots are still trying to figure out how they stack up against everyone else. Chess uses a swiss format, and if the Chess guys do it I would think we could too. I feel the way GS2 ran the swiss was near perfect, except that little fiasco at the end to figure out the point cutoff, but those problems can be avoided with proper planning I think (and they ran a 22 person bracket, Yuck!).

 

[-Chad-]

Not to interrupt this argument...but full results preeze? (before topic close..)

 

[Dopey]

"just because you dont make it out of a pool due to a technicality, which you had control over anywase.... doesnt mean the system is at fault...." ~ trail

trail definetly distributed justice in that post, that should end all arguements. **** or get off the pot. thats a funny phrase.

 

[Dr. Steve Brule]

Ice Climbers.

wrong. ice babies.

 

[Keitaro]

I love how forward just like shows up to random tournaments across the country and wins them...

I wanted to say this first

 

[BIG C]

I wanted to say this first

dont worry frooos justice shall be laid down at INN for forwardzies.