Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: An inquery regarding tournaments
FEPlanet Forums > Important Forums > Fire Emblem Tactics Online
Ellis
Two and a half topics of discussion with respect to tournaments.

- Should the losers' brackets continue to be used?
- Should matches continue to be best of 3?
----- And if no, should semi-finals and final matches remain (or in the case of minor tournaments) become best two of three?
chronofreak
Yes and yes.

The only time I ever do well in a tourney is when I snake through the losers bracket back up to the top...
And best out of three is the most balanced way to determine the better player, imo.
Stalker Sasqatch
No and Yes. Loser's bracket makes tourneys drag on for far too long, especially in very large tournaments like unpromoted 4th, where a good portion of the people in the loser's bracket went awol. 3 matches is good enough to determine who is the better player, and you don't get booted out of the tourney because of some rng lulz in a single match.
Hitsugaya
Having a loser bracket is good, people get the chance to battle again, and some people do better there if they are unfortune and meet a player such as inan in the first round. Then they maybe lose, and have a better chance fighting their way through the loser brackets.

Best out of 3 is a must, if not people can lose by bad luck. I once missed a 95% that cost me the game... and I bet somebody else have one of those as well sad.gif
One Man Wolfpack
major tournaments best out of 3 with losers bracket minor tournaments best of 1 with losers bracket plox
Ghost of FETO Past
The loser's bracket should continue to exist in both major and minor tourneys. (except for certain special cases like a non-gauntlet team tourney)

However, the amount of people that actually get their best of 3 battles done within the deadline in a major tourney, especially in the loser's bracket, is dangerously low. This is in part due to there being a lot of people that either have busy schedules, timezone differences, and people who seem to have just signed up and decided to no-show for the actual tourney battles. Thus, it's often the first 2 rounds of the winner's bracket and roughly the first 3 rounds of loser's bracket before things start to get settled out. As such, I think that those round should be best of 1, and battles after that become best of 3.
Misha
I wouldn't mind seeing
best of 3, double elimination for major tournaments.
best of 3, no loser's bracket for minor tournaments.

Three match rounds are generally faster than waiting for kaishin to ready up in his loser's bracket match five matches behind you.

However, the problem here is that "Mint vs Inanimateness, round 1". Someone's getting screwed out of a colored trophy because we had lol pairings first round.
Ted, Blue God of FETO
Random seeding for the win amirite?
kryptonite
Isn't it top and bottom in basketball? (Like 1 and 32, etc)
AHS
QUOTE(kryptonite @ Jul 14 2009, 09:38 PM) *
Isn't it top and bottom in basketball? (Like 1 and 32, etc)


Yes. The 1 and 8 seeds in each conference get paired up, same with 2 and 7, 3 and 6, and 4 and 5.

I disagree with whoever mentioned random seeding (Dunno if that was serious or not). The people with a ton of wins have earned the right for an easier trip to getting themselves a prize, while the people who don't really have much of a shot are eliminated quickly. In most cases, anyway.

And it also sets things up for epic 1st-round upsets. Rofl.
kryptonite
Well, other than random and top-bottom, there could be the two closest, but Mint kind of explained how that wouldn't be good, unless there was a loser's bracket...
Misha
it used to be standard seeding for every tournament.
Then Inan and I had the same opponents first match every tournament, SaS decided on random seeding.
AHS
QUOTE(kryptonite @ Jul 14 2009, 10:28 PM) *
Well, other than random and top-bottom, there could be the two closest, but Mint kind of explained how that wouldn't be good, unless there was a loser's bracket...


Yeah, you'd be eliminating too many good players early on.
Ellis
Not entirely. They still get the opportunit to go through the loset'rs bracket and win. So it all works out.
One Man Wolfpack
Exactly so minor tournaments best of one with losers bracket. Its the easiest, fastest and fairest way. If you get rng raped one game you still have a chance to make it in losers bracket. It also works for random pairing if that's what you use. If inan and mint get paired up then one of them still has the chance to mow through the losers bracket.
AHS
Right. So either the 16v1, 15v2, etc. seeding arrangement or we need to keep the loser's bracket.
Daemo
...How about trying best of 3 for winner's bracket, and best of 1 for loser's bracket? Loser's brackets are already designed as second chance propositions, I have no problem with making them a sudden death second chance compared to the allowance of a loss in the winner's bracket. Just a thought to compensate for how slow loser's brackets tend to move compared to winner's.
nflchamp
Something needs to be done about the loser's bracket; either changing number of games or changing the amount of time to actually battle.



I can tell you now I'm ****ing angry and am not going to become any less angry anytime soon about being kicked out of a major tourney before actually losing a game in the loser's bracket.
Ellis
Loser's bracket matches always need to move at twice the speed of winner's bracket ones due to the layout of the tournament - if I allow, say, a week for loser's bracket matches, then it ends up being two for winner's.
nflchamp
I understand that the loser's bracket has to move faster than winner's bracket. You either need to reduce the number of battles in the loser's bracket though, so I'm not stuck sitting on 7500 points I could have used to try and win the 1 fight of 3 I actually got instead of keeping it in hopes of using it to help with the other battles in the match that never happened, or change the time limit to all battles to something like 15 minutes and force the players to actually discuss times at which they can play full battles.






And, for the record, I'm not really angry about getting knocked out of the tournament due to time or only getting 1 of 3 battles in a match even though I tried to set up in order to get all the battles in. It's the fact that my opponent and I started a battle, were playing, and were trying to set up a time to finish it as soon as possible; YET I'M KICKED OUT OF THE TOURNAMENT BEFORE THE ONE ****ING GAME IS EVEN ****ING FINISHED! I DIDN'T EVEN ACTUALLY ****ING LOSE A SINGLE ****ING GAME IN THE LOSER'S BRACKET BEFORE BEING KNOCKED OFF! That is why I'm upset right now. I'd like to actually lose the single game I'm going to get in a match before being eliminated.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2018 Invision Power Services, Inc.