Foy
Smash Champion
I was talking about kong64.
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
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.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
I was talking about kong64.
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.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.
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?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.
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.
How many people are you expecting for melee?
;_; but i am a baby. =[
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.
whats the word on the date change?
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.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.
i am tottally against Continuation. It defeats the purpouse of getting two chances in a tournament
yessssssssssss! KID you have made me a very happy person
Brawl is confirmed for sunday and Melee is definitely going to be on saturday.
this.Having to only win one of the two sets is the reward the undefeated guy gets.
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.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.