Stylin' On Ya! A Western New York Tournament. December 5th AND 6th.

[Foy]

I was talking about kong64.

 

[altairian]

the whole point of double elimination is that you have to lose twice to be knocked out. its pretty unfair to the person who makes it all the way through winners finals to grand finals, you only lose a single set and be eliminated from the tourny, whereas everyone else got two chances.

sorry if this was already addressed a few pages ago i didnt read everything

If you lose a 4 out of 7 set it's a pretty safe bet that you would have lost 2 sets in a row against that same person. Besides, all but 2 people will have been eliminated by losing 4 games. So, it's not exactly unfair. And considering how long grand finals take in comparison to every other round of a tournament, I think it's a good idea to try to limit the length a bit.

 

[da K.I.D.]

I was talking about kong64.

In that case, Stop being such a baby. Man up and take your beating. One stage isnt going to win or lose you any sets, your bad and you should probably worry about being good to begin with before you start focusing on stages. =P

also @ JPOBS. I think SHETH and alt explained it much better than I could have. I hope that is sufficient for you.

 

[PikaPika!]

If you lose a 4 out of 7 set it's a pretty safe bet that you would have lost 2 sets in a row against that same person. Besides, all but 2 people will have been eliminated by losing 4 games. So, it's not exactly unfair. And considering how long grand finals take in comparison to every other round of a tournament, I think it's a good idea to try to limit the length a bit.

I've always been a fan of either the normal 2 best of 5's in winners finals (assuming the person in winners bracket actually loses the first set) or if the people in grand finals have played each other before earlier in tournament using a continuation set.

Who wants to make it all the way to finals and then lose one set and be out when your opponent got his 2 sets in? and in the case of a continuation set you start out at the previous record and build from that still giving you the advantage.

 

[Sheth]

I've always been a fan of either the normal 2 best of 5's in winners finals (assuming the person in winners bracket actually loses the first set) or if the people in grand finals have played each other before earlier in tournament using a continuation set.

Who wants to make it all the way to finals and then lose one set and be out when your opponent got his 2 sets in? and in the case of a continuation set you start out at the previous record and build from that still giving you the advantage.

This logic, I can relate to some more, I admit. It's a good point. I concede there's some good reasoning behind that. What's everyone else think?

 

[Kantō]

isnt best outta 7 fairly similar to just playing to normal sets? if each player wins twice, thats like 2 sets, right?

 

[da K.I.D.]

Well on the one hand, making the grands, best 4 out of 7 gives the advantage of the last set being more suspenceful because of a bigger set, and at the same time it still limits the length of that round.

Ive been to many a tournament where neil and jesse/san/whoever plays in grand finals and everyone is more focused on playing friendlies because the continuation sets and double sets are just so long that people lose interest.

But on the other hand. its understandable for the person that has made it all the way to grand finals with out losing a set to like the concept of double sets and contuination because it does in fact reward them and give them an advantage for getting to that point with out losing. so as they dont feel as if theyre being unfairly handicapped or had something taken away from them (the ability to lose a set and still be in the tourney) purely because they did something right.

Personally I feel that a 4/7 set is still large enough to be fair for the person who hasnt lost (they can still take a few individual loses and still win the tourney) the person that came from losers bracket, (its still technically an even set) and the others in attendance. (it cuts between a half hour and an hour out of play time by taking the set down from a max 7 games to a possible 10 or 11.) But thats just me.

So we have JPOBS and Pikapika! in favor of a double/continuation set.

and bry, and alt and SHETH leaning more toward one single larger set.

Anybody else like to throw their opinion out there? This is an open forum for everybody to discuss.

 

[Erkekjetter]

I'd rather see it as 2 sets, just because of what they said before: the whole tourney is double elimination, therefore the end should be double elimination. It already is a larger than normal set by making it 3 out of 5 instead of 2 out of 3.

As for a single stage losing a set for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTNaAUJZz5k

Just my opinion.

 

[san.]

I do think that one large 4/7 set favors the person coming in from loser's finals a lot more than the person who won winners, especially if the person coming from loser's already lost to the pending grand finalist.

4/7 may possibly basically degrade to winner's finals, but with an added twist- less stages to use. On the second set of grand finals, stage bans/counterpicks are able to be switched, and previous stages may be played on again. In a 4/7 set, there is only 1 ban, and once you win on a certain stage, you can't pick that stage again. There are both positives and negatives to this.

More stage variety-->many times, the same stages are picked in the second set. With a 4/7 set, this will not occur, especially if each decides to play on their best stages and each wins, especially if it goes to 7 games. However, this really limits the "second try" feeling of doing an entirely different set(new bans, renewed cps, etc).

I like two 3/5 sets, personally, but I wouldn't mind 4/7 sets because of a more variety of stages.

 

[Erkekjetter]

Having the stages reset seems a little more fair though, despite having the chance to be really repetitive.

 

[Toronto Joe]

kid id only be able to come if this was hosted during the xmas break,sorry man

 

[da K.I.D.]

I'd rather see it as 2 sets, just because of what they said before: the whole tourney is double elimination, therefore the end should be double elimination. It already is a larger than normal set by making it 3 out of 5 instead of 2 out of 3.

As for a single stage losing a set for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTNaAUJZz5k

Just my opinion.

As much as pink camped, as a ganon main I can say that rock made a lot of mistakes and was clearly out played. he also got beat on a stage that his opponent knew well enough to counterpick him on. That being said I dont think kongo was at fault for the loss.

and as for the finals thing. let me get a count here. also, I just realised the differnce between playing two sets and a continuation set. and should you all decide that one large set is not optimal, I would rather have a continuation set, for i think it bears more advantages and still does what the people are looking for.

Edit
That blows joe, i wanted to play your fox.

Edit2: heres our tally so far.

Continuation Set/2 Set grand finals
JPOBS
Pikapika!
Erk

One large GF set
Bry
Alterian
KID

Unsure/undecided.
Sheth
San
Everyone that hasnt said anything yet.

 

[COHEED AND CAMBRIA]

How many people are you expecting for melee?

 

[Sheth]

I misunderstood, perhaps? I thought pikapika meant different win/loss conditions for the two players in the grand finals, on the grounds that the player from the winner's bracket is to be rewarded for having lost no matches on his climb.

Statistically, 2 sets vs one set of a different length offers no advantage to either side, to be clear. Multiple sets rewards consecutive wins, over total number of rounds. I'm against that, personally.

-So, I'm for a system that would handicap the loser's bracket winner in a challenge to the winner's bracket winner, (lightly, I'd hope, or perhaps based on their play record so far if they've fought once,).

If you're talking blank sets with equal winning terms between both players, then it's definitely one set, for my opinion.

For a difference for winner/loser's entrants, I prefer evaluating by rounds vs. sets.

 

[PinPoint]

Double elim = Winners finalist can lose a best of 5 and still get a chance at another best of 5.

anything else isn't double elim :|

 

[Sheth]

I discussed it with someone that's been to more tourneys than me, and got that conclusion too. Makes sense.

-Got wrapped up in mah stat-type evaluation.

 

[MCmaniacDBR]

Yeah I'm totally down for this ****, but I vote to leave brawl on saturday just because I don't plan on doing melee this tourney and if brawl runs long sunday night i'll have to be up for class monday morning which would not be fun =(

 

[da K.I.D.]

All events should be over by 10 at the very very latest for both days, i dont think class the next day is something you have to worry about.

 

[da K.I.D.]

How many people are you expecting for melee?

its really up in the air, it could be as low as 20 with just rochester people to more than 40 with the inclusion of ohio kids, canada kids, PA kids, and the slight possibility of NYC and NE kids.

current tally

Continuation Set/2 Set grand finals
JPOBS
Pikapika!
Erk
Sheth
Pinpoint

One large GF set
Bry
Alterian
KID

 

[Snowmanthatknows]

Smash Bros 64? ):

 

[MCmaniacDBR]

BTW goggles i vote for 2 sets in GF, it just makes sense to me

 

[Kantō]

whats the word on the date change?

 

[Sharky]

make it two sets definitely, one set kind of takes away some of the advantage the winner should get from not losing yet. =/

 

[Foy]

In that case, Stop being such a baby. Man up and take your beating. One stage isnt going to win or lose you any sets, your bad and you should probably worry about being good to begin with before you start focusing on stages. =P

also @ JPOBS. I think SHETH and alt explained it much better than I could have. I hope that is sufficient for you.

;_; but i am a baby. =[

And sign me up for whatever Rtf said cause that mutha****a is fly.

 

[CJTHeroofTime]

Heres my problem with 2 set/continuation. Lets say player A beats player B 2-0 in early winners bracket. A goes to win winners finals, B goes and wins losers bracket. They now face in grand finals. If continuation is being used, then it stands that A is winning 2-0. Now, if A wins 1 match, B loses the best of 5 set, A being the champion. This would mean that technically, player B lost only 3 games, whereas every other player has lost 4. This proves to be a major disadvantage for B.

In my opinion, there are only two alternatives.
The first is using a fresh Bo5 set, and if the winner of WF loses, then it proceeds to a 2nd Bo5 set.
Pros:
-Winner of WF has an advantage, since he has not lost a set yet.
-Winner of LF has a fresh set(which he is entitled to)
-Neither player is eliminated without losing two sets
-Both players get fresh attempts at stage bans/counterpicks
Cons:
-Can be lengthy
- Possibly less variety in stages

Alternative 2- One Bo7 set, starting with the score of the first set between the two (ie, if A beat B 2-0. it would start 2-0, and so on)
Pros:
-Winner of previous set has an advantage for already beating the loser
-Neither can be eliminated without losing a total of four matches
-More time-efficient
-More stage variety
Cons:
-Set is continued, so bans/cps still stand (ie no fresh start)
-Doesn't work well with WF and LF being Bo5, and would require those sets to be played Bo3 like every other set


Personally, I believe both winners and losers finals should be Bo3 like every other set and grand finals should be Bo7 continuation, but thats probly just me. It just seems like the whole winners/losers finals concept arbitrarily places greater value on those two sets, when in reality, theyre just like every other set, one player moves on, one doesnt.

 

[BluePeachy100]

I think it should ne set continuation GFs, not just one large one.

 

[COHEED AND CAMBRIA]

i am tottally against Continuation. It defeats the purpouse of getting two chances in a tournament

 

[da K.I.D.]

TL;dwr. Brawl is sunday, grand finals is two bo5s

whats the word on the date change?

Brawl is confirmed for sunday and Melee is definitely going to be on saturday.

Heres my problem with 2 set/continuation. Lets say player A beats player B 2-0 in early winners bracket. A goes to win winners finals, B goes and wins losers bracket. They now face in grand finals. If continuation is being used, then it stands that A is winning 2-0. Now, if A wins 1 match, B loses the best of 5 set, A being the champion. This would mean that technically, player B lost only 3 games, whereas every other player has lost 4. This proves to be a major disadvantage for B.

You are sliightly incorrect here. In the case of a continuation set, in grandfinals, it ends up being the first player to get to either 5 or 6 wins, not 3. effectively turning a best of 3 or 5 set to a best of 9 or 11 set. so in this example if player A (lets call him san) beat player B (lets call him pikapika) 2-0 earlier. than in grand finals they take the established score of that set (2-0) and apply it to a best of 9/11 series and effectively make it a "whoever gets to 5/6 wins first wins.

In my opinion, there are only two alternatives.
The first is using a fresh Bo5 set, and if the winner of WF loses, then it proceeds to a 2nd Bo5 set.
Pros:
-Winner of WF has an advantage, since he has not lost a set yet.
-Winner of LF has a fresh set(which he is entitled to)
-Neither player is eliminated without losing two sets
-Both players get fresh attempts at stage bans/counterpicks
Cons:
-Can be lengthy
- Possibly less variety in stages

Alternative 2- One Bo7 set, starting with the score of the first set between the two (ie, if A beat B 2-0. it would start 2-0, and so on)
Pros:
-Winner of previous set has an advantage for already beating the loser
-Neither can be eliminated without losing a total of four matches
-More time-efficient
-More stage variety
Cons:
-Set is continued, so bans/cps still stand (ie no fresh start)
-Doesn't work well with WF and LF being Bo5, and would require those sets to be played Bo3 like every other set

this is a more accurate definition of what a continuation set is, although like I said earlier continuation sets are usually out of 9 or 11 games. since it wouldnt be fair to only have to lose 4 games in grands when the people in WF and LF has 5 chances.


Personally, I believe both winners and losers finals should be Bo3 like every other set and grand finals should be Bo7 continuation, but thats probly just me. It just seems like the whole winners/losers finals concept arbitrarily places greater value on those two sets, when in reality, theyre just like every other set, one player moves on, one doesnt.

Think about basketball. There was a time that in the playoffs, when the best people played, they gave them progressively more chances to win because the more games people play, the better it shows who really is the better team. at one point the first round in the playoffs was ( i think) 3 games, and than quarterfinals and semis were 5 games, and then championship was 7 games, because 1. we want to see the best teams play. and 2. when it comes to the best players/teams we want to get them more round so as to really show who the better one is.

i am tottally against Continuation. It defeats the purpouse of getting two chances in a tournament

Im not following your logic here, can you elaborate?

either, way, it sounds like in the spirit of fairness to the guy who wins, you all would like me to change to a form of grand finals system where the person coming in from winners finals does have to lose two sets in order to lose the tournament. and since a continuation set is kinda complecated, im going to make it so its just a 2 set system, where grand finals will be a best of five set, and if the person coming in from winners loses, he has another best of five set to play because he has not lost a set yet, up to that point of the tournament.

 

[MCmaniacDBR]

Yeah CJ that's what I think we're voting for, one best of 7 set, or 2 best of 5 sets that only have continuation from the finals.

So for instance..
Player A vs. Player B WF - > Player A wins a set of 5 and goes to GF
Player C vs. Player B LF - > Player B wins a set of 5 and goes to GF

Since Player A has already won a set in the finals against Player B, Player B MUST win the first set of GF to have the finals go to a 3rd set, otherwise if Player A wins he wins the tourney.

Another way to see this...

Player A vs. Player B WF - > Player A wins a set of 5 and goes to GF
Player C vs. Player B LF - > Player C wins a set of 5 and goes to GF

Player A and C have 2 sets of 5 in GF since they have never faced each other before in the finals sets.

EDIT:

Both of the examples above are how the 2 sets of 5 idea would work, otherwise GF would just be one huge set of 7. Just to clear any confusion that may occur.

 

[Sheth]

So you're for a clean slate if the players have no play record between themselves in the grand finals. That's aright I guess, but it doesn't follow the idea of rewarding the fact that LF entrant has lost a set when GF doesn't.

-I'm still for it, it's a good system, I'd say.

 

[altairian]

Having to only win one of the two sets is the reward the undefeated guy gets.

Also, I just remembered I might have to work sunday night at my new job, lol. I'll see if I can request it off >_>

 

[Sheth]

Eek, what a bad stroke of luck. Hopefully you can if you request 3.5 weeks out. >_<

 

[Kantō]

Brawl is confirmed for sunday and Melee is definitely going to be on saturday.

yessssssssssss! KID you have made me a very happy person

 

[da K.I.D.]

Having to only win one of the two sets is the reward the undefeated guy gets.

this.

also, we have a small problem...

Check thefirst post

 

[Kantō]

uh oh...

 

[Foy]

Jesse team with me for this. Both games.

 

[MCmaniacDBR]

So you're for a clean slate if the players have no play record between themselves in the grand finals. That's aright I guess, but it doesn't follow the idea of rewarding the fact that LF entrant has lost a set when GF doesn't.

I've never actually been to a tournament, but I've seen so many tournaments on youtube and justin.tv that I can honestly say most of the time WF and GF end up being the same two people because the person that gets knocked into losers finals usually wins it and heads to Grand Finals.

 

[da K.I.D.]

I went to a tourney here a while back where i got to winners finals, and lost to san, and than lost to pikapika in losers finals. around this time last year i think it was.

 

[BluePeachy100]

So Foy, you really are gonna give me a ride right? I will pay for it.

If so, I can bring a full setup. (For Melee, POSSIBLY Brawl as well)

 

[Foy]

um actually dont think i can get you. =[