Pools Only format - works and is faster than double elimination bracket

[Tesh]

That doesn't sound like a major problem. Most areas have a notable enough skill gap where mid level players reach a certain point in loser's bracket and know they won't make it past their next match if they win the round they are on.

The most important thing imo, is that when you reach the final pool, you pay out all or almost all of the placings. That way even if 1st and 2nd are decided, its still important to play it out for 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th.

Of course you can always do that with a bracket, like at MLG, but pools are alot better because you won't wind up at 5th or 7th just because you lost to 1st and 2nd early due to biased seeding.

 

[-LzR-]

Well yeah Finnish tournaments only cost 5€ to enter and we consider 20 entrants a kinda big deal so we cannot pay more than 3 players any money or no one would get anything worth the trouble. We don't play for money though so it's not a problem, it has more to do with "honor" or something.
I anyways had the final pool with 4 players. The worst player wouldn't get anything, and the rest was spread 60/30/10.
I don't see much reason to use Double Elimination anymore in Finnish tournies except if the TO is inexperienced. Has there been any awesome tourney that has used this system yet? I'd like to see how it goes.

 

[salaboB]

Well yeah Finnish tournaments only cost 5€ to enter and we consider 20 entrants a kinda big deal so we cannot pay more than 3 players any money or no one would get anything worth the trouble. We don't play for money though so it's not a problem, it has more to do with "honor" or something.
I anyways had the final pool with 4 players. The worst player wouldn't get anything, and the rest was spread 60/30/10.
I don't see much reason to use Double Elimination anymore in Finnish tournies except if the TO is inexperienced. Has there been any awesome tourney that has used this system yet? I'd like to see how it goes.

You gave an example of placing 3rd/4th in a pool (And that won't change regardless of outcome) for a match that doesn't matter. What if you track wins/losses for points for seeding next time anyway, so that even if nothing else the 4th place would want to try to win to get just that tiny bit more of an edge at a later tournament?

Obviously the seed points shouldn't have that much impact on later tournies (As Overswarm outlined you'd only be seeding the top X players) but it would be something persistent to work towards even if this tournament is lost for that player, as the points could slowly be built up for a time when they might break through into the top group where their seeding changes based on it.

 

[Overswarm]

I'm bumping this for Project M and Brawl both. This still needs to be done more often.

 

[Rat]

These are the problems are some problems with only pools format.

- Lame Duck Period
Pools create matches of no consequence to the event. Playing through them is formality and imo feels like crap to do.

- No Easy Narrative: Loss of Hype
Double elimination creates a story. Pools can but it's rarer - It's much more of a mess.
This make it harder to watch. It's not easy to discern what matches matter or what this win means. There's less of a build-up for hype.

- Player Manipulation
Players manipulation is easier in pools. A good example is the friend of the top player. The friend just needs one more win to make it out. So the top player is all like "Dude! Sure, I'll help you out. I'm gonna make it out easy!" and throws the game. That stinky and easier to do in pools.

Also it doesn't have to be done out of malice - In their mind it was helpful. But for the tournament (and other players) it was not.

- Too many matches
This one is obv gonna vary per person. But people get tired from playing so many matches. Competitors playing at their best - that's what I want to watch and that's how i'd prefer to play. Tournaments should not be about endurance.

Idk about that last one. Mostly for me I'd rather have less tournament matches and finish the event. Then get some friendlies.

 

[Overswarm]

These are the problems are some problems with only pools format.

- Lame Duck Period
Pools create matches of no consequence to the event. Playing through them is formality and imo feels like crap to do.

This is selfish reasoning! More matches = better. People have fun playing the game, they should be able to play more sets against more people to try to improve.

- No Easy Narrative: Loss of Hype
Double elimination creates a story. Pools can but it's rarer - It's much more of a mess.
This make it harder to watch. It's not easy to discern what matches matter or what this win means. There's less of a build-up for hype.

This is true, but I've found it creates other unique stories. Still no "finals", but people don't really watch those often anyways. With pools only you can say "$25 money match on TV 3!" and the like.

- Player Manipulation
Players manipulation is easier in pools. A good example is the friend of the top player. The friend just needs one more win to make it out. So the top player is all like "Dude! Sure, I'll help you out. I'm gonna make it out easy!" and throws the game. That stinky and easier to do in pools.

Also it doesn't have to be done out of malice - In their mind it was helpful. But for the tournament (and other players) it was not.

This is true. I typically just threaten people with permanent banning from the event and the events of any TOs I can convince, and if they know me they know I'm serious.

- Too many matches
This one is obv gonna vary per person. But people get tired from playing so many matches. Competitors playing at their best - that's what I want to watch and that's how i'd prefer to play. Tournaments should not be about endurance.

Idk about that last one. Mostly for me I'd rather have less tournament matches and finish the event. Then get some friendlies.

The last one is a legitimate thing. Some people get exhausted. That one is mostly up for debate and depends on whether you think endurance is a skill to be tested.

 

[JTsm]

You need a 20ft wall of text to explain pools?

wutevn

 

[Overswarm]

You need a 20ft wall of text to explain pools?

wutevn

Not pools, pools-only. A lot of people are unaware how to do pools well or to do so without making your second round have an awkward number of pools or players.

 

[Cuban Legend]

Sorry for the bump. But I'm going to be doing this in my next semi-annual tourney in 6 months. (Just TO'd one last night at my house, 16 entrants Double Elimination Singles, and Doubles of PM 3.0)

I noticed we needed an extra setup for friendlies because those who got knocked out early were bored... hopefully pools only next time allows them to play more games, and have more fun! Thank you for this thread, kind sir!

 

[pidgezero_one]

I like this a lot

 

[dav3yb]

So we have an upcoming tournament, and it'll be the first major one run in the area. We've had a few local gamestop tournaments, but those were pretty restricted due to being in the store.

We were discussing how to go about the tournament, and we were wondering when a good size to start using pools would be. We want people to play as much as possible, but don't want things to run over too much. We'll also have multiple games at this tournament, which might make things a bit more chaotic.

We will finish with a bracket for sure, but we were trying to think of what number of entrants we should use pools to filter down. Because of this tournament being a lot larger than anything we've done before, it's hard to say how many will show up.

Also, how are tie breakers used when doing a pool?