The Last Time I Will Do This

[Eddie G]

That's not a bad suggestion at all. My main concern with it is that loyalty or other similar detriments aren't always determined by region alone. I know a lot of players from seperate regions who are very good friends with one another.

 

[Juushichi]

To be honest, I would probably mess around with bracket pools before this. Sure, promoting growth is important and all but let's be realistic here...it is now mid 2012, how much has our scene (in general, Midwest and the coasts) grown within the span of four years? Numbers were naturally at their highest during the period when this game was considered new. Then, a plateau, and eventually a steady decline/stagnated plateau. National numbers usually top at 200-250 and haven't gone anywhere beyond that (barring Apex, mind you). Regionals usually vary between 60-100, and locals vary in size depending on the region (we usually see something in the 15-30 range). These numbers really haven't changed much if you think about it, and likely never will increase (I'm just being realistic here, not pessimistic).

That being said, and I digress, while it is important to focus on growth and all - I think getting our **** in gear at events time-wise should take a higher priority. Getting matches done in a timely fashion, clearing out brackets as quickly as possible to grant more time to play on free setups, those kinds of things. I feel that people are trying to mesh the "play more matches and get your moneys worth" concept into bracket-play a little too much. That, in turn, does little to promote incentive for people to get their matches done without wasting time because they won't be as concerned about being able to play more if they're already being granted more 'filler' sets per event. If you simply limit the hand-outs during pools/bracket play, and push the idea to "get your **** done if you want to play more", I believe there are some positives that can come out of that as well.

Edit: Either that or replace the "final pool" with a small double elimination braket. No real reason, just personal preference.

I'm confused at the time-wise mentality though, outside of the sometimes poorly run regionals that we've hosted, we have rarely as a region been in a position where time was a huge deal and that was more about logistics and TO decisions than the players who were actually around.

"filler" sets aren't even a problem because if you don't even get out of your initial pool, it doesn't even matter. In fact, I'm more convinced that there are more "filler sets" in a regular bracket than there would be in a pool-only format. Fox vs IC? Filler set. Wolf vs DDD? Filler set. DDD/ROB/most really bad characters vs MK? Filler set (exceptions do happen though). The notion that "if you get your **** done, you'll get to play more" has even MORE upside to pools matches because you get more sets that matter in a tournament. Compared to, "oh, I guess we can maybe MM if we miraculously meet in bracket or like, if the tournament is over and the stars align right and and and".

 

[Eddie G]

You're basing some filler sets on what matchups take place? To that I say: if you don't vary your own options in terms of character choices, then you deserve to lose to those matchups if you ever encounter them. I also now see MK as a godsend against double-blind lameness (something I've used from time to time), being the X-factor choice and all.

Sure, you get more sets that matter, but that leaves a chance for hype (a huge positive toward growth if you ask me) to get prodded in the bootyhole, especially for higher seed matches that might be sandbagged if one or both players already have a secured spot in the next wave. Plus, since moving to another pool is essentially a reset, that may also further promote sandbagging if there isn't as much of a "fight for your tournament life, you get two chances" factor present. It gives people way too much time to figure out the other player if they meet again (the only notable comparison to that is a player having to win two sets against the other in Grand Finals of a double elim bracket).

Again, this feels like people are trying to turn tournaments (a test of your skill) into more of a smashfest environment. Like turning an actual test into more of a study hall. I dunno...despite my initial opposition towards some stuff, I still generally give everything a shot. I could be convinced otherwise, but at the moment my interest is leaning more toward trying bracket pools first.

 

[sneakytako]

What hype? When was the last time there was any hype in the MW for matches that involved people who place?

 

[Eddie G]

The entire MW? I'm not sure...PS4 was pretty hype though.

In Ohio? Fonz vs Blue Rogue, probably.

 

[sneakytako]

Fonz vs BR? That was like a million years ago, back when William Shatner had priceline ads and gasoline was under 3 dollars a gallon.

 

[Eddie G]

Don't forget David Hasselhoff actually had a career.

 

[clowsui]

Bracket pools are really stupid as a method of determining seeds imo. If you're using it to eliminate that's a different story but seed determination with bracket pools is so asinine.

Let's say you have a 16 man bracket pool. That means that the MAXIMUM number of people that someone plays is 6 (to get out of the pool as a 2nd seed through winning LF and losing WBR1) and the MINIMUM is 4. The likelihood of someone losing in WBR1 and making it to LF is pretty slim unless you're at a dumb stacked tournament, but let's say we give the player the benefit of the doubt of playing 6 matches.

If you split the bracket pool into two round robin pools of 8, one given person will play 64-8=56/2=28 sets in an 8 man pool. If we use "# of matches won" as a metric to use in assigning seeds, then an 8 man round robin pool is 450% more accurate than a 16 man bracket pool.

The numbers get even worse if you change the 16 man bracket to an 8 man bracket. Weird numbers (10 man bracket, 2 5 man pools; 12 man bracket, 2 6 man pools etc.) don't have any effect.

You can't dodge the fact that a round robin is way more accurate than a double elimination bracket unless you'd like to propose a different metric for assigning seeds. There's no rule that says you have to try all the time/no strong prevention of rigging atm (it's called, DQ the entire pool that rigs and advance additional members from other random pools, or have judges for the pool) BUT if you don't try that's a risk you're taking on your own.

Even Chibo/GDX/Keitaro etc acknowledge that bracket pools are mainly beneficial due to avoiding sticky tiebreaker situations and timesaving. Has nothing to do with accuracy. BTW there's like 0 problem with time when it comes to Ohio tournaments lol, we have some of the best efficiency in the nation tbh.

You're basing some filler sets on what matchups take place? To that I say: if you don't vary your own options in terms of character choices, then you deserve to lose to those matchups if you ever encounter them. I also now see MK as a godsend against double-blind lameness (something I've used from time to time), being the X-factor choice and all.

Filler sets in bracket are WAY different than filler sets in pools. Filler sets in pools, as you identified in a previous post, are caused by people who have "secured" a seeding position (which is why the best pools have specific play orders, but no one's done that since FC because...I dunno lol). Filler sets in bracket occur because of bracket position and are statistically unavoidable due to the number of single character mains in the Brawl community and the polarized nature of matchups in this game. Calling out people who aren't willing to pick up other characters to stop these filler sets from happening doesn't actually change the fact that they happen anyways; you missed the point lol.

Sure, you get more sets that matter, but that leaves a chance for hype (a huge positive toward growth if you ask me) to get prodded in the bootyhole, especially for higher seed matches that might be sandbagged if one or both players already have a secured spot in the next wave. Plus, since moving to another pool is essentially a reset, that may also further promote sandbagging if there isn't as much of a "fight for your tournament life, you get two chances" factor present. It gives people way too much time to figure out the other player if they meet again (the only notable comparison to that is a player having to win two sets against the other in Grand Finals of a double elim bracket).

I don't see how you came to the conclusions you did in this part of the post. Hype doesn't come from elimination potential lol. Hype comes from the player matchup itself most of the time. It also comes from how close a match is, or how significant a match is (which isn't determined necessarily by format or elimination; see crews or money matches). The only time that higher seed players will get a chance to sandbag, especially at a tournament that is of a sufficient stack level, is the first round pool. "Fight for your life, you get two chances"? "Fight for your life, you can't depend on other people to perform the way you expect them to". Seems roughly equivalent to me, one just requires more thinking than the other. "Way too much time to figure the other player out" is irrelevant in the face of winning lol. If you can't adjust to being "figured out", sucks to suck.

Growth comes from bottom up strategies. This is a bottom up strategy that caters to middle or bottom level players to build their experience. At tournaments that are large enough to warrant brackets (40 or greater) I think Juggleguy's Hybrid Bracket format is the best. LBR2, LBR4, etc. as round robins sound like a great idea to me.

 

[Strong Badam]

bracket pools are great if you have a 300+ man brawl tourney
otherwise u shouldn't need them

 

[ZTD | TECHnology]

I can't believe this thread is still active lol

 

[The Good Doctor]

I can't believe this thread is still active lol

I honestly said that out loud before reading this last page.

 

[lain]

KING OF BUMPS

so i kinda arrived late, but this was an excellent (drunk) post tech!

figuring this out is a huge step towards growing past your own limits. i wish MI got this.

 

[ZTD | TECHnology]

^ Yoooooooo!

We'll get there Will. At things are a bit more interesting in MI. And people are getting better and focusing on thr right methods to improving. We're a bit late to the party...but better late than never!

 

[Juushichi]

That's good, Tech. If we keep up the work, I think the dedicated Ohio players we have are also getting there.

You (MI) also got a good look at one of the products of the system we're trying in Ohio (Carls), and after we get over the setback of losing Momo2 as an easily accessable venue and gaining potentially Fizzle/Suyon, we'll get back again.