• Follow our Instagram!
  • Curious about what we're currently doing about bots? Check out the latest updates from staff in this thread.

Tournament sign-up threads and their format

If you are a fairly active participant in Tournaments held in the Smogon Tournament subforum, you will notice that it is getting very hard to join Tournaments lately. I'll highlight some issues through actual examples, but first I will present the problem on a more general line. Before anyone whine about it, I'd like to underline that, if I make specific examples, it is not because I want to call out user X who happens to be the host of said Tournament, but rather because I want to show you that the problem is real, concrete and documented. I don't want anyone in this thread to say anything like "you are talking about a non-existant problem" or "the things you say in the OP" are false.

Right now, the standard format for Tournaments is 64-man, with some specific ones being restricted to 32 (like Secret Santa) and others, generally less connected to the competitive side (like Riding the Metronome and Random Tournament) allowing up to 128 participants. I'll focus my OP on the 64-man format, since it is arguably the standard for Tournaments nowadays (as you probably have guessed, I'm not taking official tournaments into account). Most of the sign-up threads pertaining to these tournaments have one of the following issues:

1) They close shortly after they have been posted
2) They handpick the participants

I will explain why they are both undesireable issues. First, let's talk about (1). Lately, some Tournaments have closed their sign-up thread few hours after they have been opened. An example of this is the Item Restriction Tournament. If you compare the time of the OP and the time of the last post, you'll see that the thread has been open for just 4 hours. This is clearly a problem, because a lot of people who live in a different timezone are completely unable to even get a chance at signing up (sometimes, even being a sub is impossible). Now, you may say "Tough shit, Zarator. You will get to participate in the next tournament". But what if every sign-up thread lasts only for a few hours? Do I really have to rely on getting blessed with an host who live in my same timezone in order to participate in a tournament?
I may look like I'm exaggerating the problem, but if you check these threads you'll see that I'm not joking. How many tournaments stay up for at least 24 hours (which should be the reasonable amount of time for being sure everyone got the chance to sign-up no matter where he lives)? Very few, and most of those which actually do (at least, among 64-man tournaments) fall under the second issue, which I will outlight below.

Now, on with (2). I can see a lot of you saying something along the lines of "What's wrong with it? I don't care about Smogon average battler, I just want to see the best of Smogon playing against each other. Besides, if we make a 32-man tourney with a "handpicking" system which favours well know players, we will probably obtain the same names we would get if those 32 were an hypothetic "round 3" of a 128-man tournament, right?".
Well, let me just say that, if you were to be right and Tournaments could be so easy to predict, I guess the front runner of the Smogon Prediction Tournament (also, let's not forget that, being about standard OU, ST is probably the easiest tournament to predict - with less influence from gimmicks, it is easier for the good player to defeat the bad, right?) would have much more points than what corresponds to, roughly, 50% of the Round 1 battles. A lot of players are much better than their reputation would suggest, and discarding them a priori only because they are not enough well known detracts, ultimately, from Smogon's attempt to aim for the maximum level of competitiveness (no matter what could you say about Tournaments being less competitive than ladder).

Now, most sign-up threads try to reduce this issues in a way or another. The most popular ways are arguably the following 3:
a) First come, first serve: This way, the issue (2) gets removed from the equation.
b) Handpicking system: This way, it is possible to leave the thread open for more days, essentially removing the issue (1)
c) Mix: They generally allow the first 40 participants through the method a, filling the remaining 24 spots through the method b. It dampens both issues to a certain extent.

All of these methods have its merits, but it should be apparent that no one of them manage to solve the issues at hand in an acceptable way. The closest one is c, but it still penalizes certain timezones.

Now, it is quite obvious that I would not make such a OP without even trying to propose a solution which could be more suitable then the ones applied so far. My idea, which is obviously open to discussion, is simply bringing the standard format for Tournaments up to 128. I cannot see important issues coming from it, compared to the current 64-man format. Someone could argue that specific Tournaments may be unmanageable with 128 participants. However, more often than not, such Tournaments would run less than 64 participants anyway (like Secret Santa). Most of the current 64-man tournaments could be comfortably be run with 128 participants without major problems, besides having another round (which isn't really a problem, in my opinion) and having more troubles with getting all matches finished (which is an issue pertaining the 1st round only, anyway - from the 2nd round on, there would not be any differences). If you do not believe Smogon can support 128 non-official Tournaments (i.e. it cannot fill approximately within a day 128 spots), or that even 128 would be too low of a number, look at the Random Tournament #2 sign-up thread. It stayed open for roughly a day (20 hours, to be accurate), and it gathered approximately 145-150 submissions, which is much more closer to 128 than the current 90-100 -like numbers we reach if we let a 64-man tournament open even for something like 12 hours.

Well, this is it, pretty much. Discuss, and, although this goes without saying, stay on topic! Thanks for your attention.
 
d)Sign-ups are open for a time period specified upon thread posting. Once signups close, participants are chosen at random. No issue with over-short signup periods, no bias from handpicking, and no requirement to increase tournament size.
 
Being the OP of that Item Restriction Tournament, I feel fairly obligated to post. Id have to agree with Zarator. It took a very short time for the singups to fill up and I was extremely surprised that I was able to get R1 up the same night. Since then I have gotten many requests to sub, 12 I believe, and I undoubtably would've have more if the signups were still open.

If I could go back, I think I would make it into a 128 person tournament. I can't exactly do that now, without pissing off a ton of people. So, If I end up hosting a tournament in the future, I will put it to 128.
 
Im not sure making the tournament larger solves the problem, like you said it is more organisation.
You argued that it is biased in favour of people in the same time zone. What would you say to someone saying that is a good thing? It vastly eases organisation for the host and for the people who have to battle at ridiculous hours due to timezone differences. It makes sense.
Perhaps the answer is to have multiple competitions in different timezones, the same tournament in a different timezone. Perhaps early rounds could be run to ensure equal representation (4 quarters to the draw, from different time zones). Or perhaps this too is unfair.
Ultimatly the most simple answer is to increase the number of people who will host in your region. You seem to be a well integrated member of the community, im sure they will let you run pair up with someone and joint host a tournament.
 
d)Sign-ups are open for a time period specified upon thread posting. Once signups close, participants are chosen at random. No issue with over-short signup periods, no bias from handpicking, and no requirement to increase tournament size.

It may work (surely it is much more fair than the "last 24 handpicked" system), however I can still see a lot of people getting upset by this. If you post right after the OP, for example, and you end up being randomly discarded, chances are you would be quite angry^^ Also, I may sound a jerk if I say it, but I question the viability of such a system. Without any way to properly check the "randomness" of the process, it may turn into a "handpick in disguise", if you get what I mean. "Correcting awful randoms" is too much of a temptation to pass up IMO. I just see less grief coming from extending the participation up to 128.

Being the OP of that Item Restriction Tournament, I feel fairly obligated to post. Id have to agree with Zarator. It took a very short time for the singups to fill up and I was extremely surprised that I was able to get R1 up the same night. Since then I have gotten many requests to sub, 12 I believe, and I undoubtably would've have more if the signups were still open.

If I could go back, I think I would make it into a 128 person tournament. I can't exactly do that now, without pissing off a ton of people. So, If I end up hosting a tournament in the future, I will put it to 128.

I'm glad you agree, and let me assure you another time that the fact I mentioned you did not mean I think you did a bad thing or anything. You have all my respect^^

Im not sure making the tournament larger solves the problem, like you said it is more organisation.
You argued that it is biased in favour of people in the same time zone. What would you say to someone saying that is a good thing? It vastly eases organisation for the host and for the people who have to battle at ridiculous hours due to timezone differences. It makes sense.
Perhaps the answer is to have multiple competitions in different timezones. Have an Item restriction Tournament (US) and a similar one for EU etc. (up to three seems reasonable) and that people can only apply to one [i am very sorry to bring up that example, no offense, i recognise you wernt to blame. honest mistake]. Perhaps early rounds could be run to ensure equal representation (4 quarters to the draw, from different time zones). Or perhaps this too is unfair.
Ultimatly the most simple answer is to increase the number of people who will host in your region. You seem to be a well integrated member of the community, im sure they will let you run a small scale tournament. If not, pair up with someone who is respected and joint host. Become active in response to your own problem.

I will answer your points separately.

Saying that having all the participants from the same timezone is a good excuse to discriminate lesser populated ones (like Europe and Australia) is largely incorrect, IMO. Giving all competitors an equal foot is much more important than making sure the host has an easy work.

About the "different version of the same tournament for different timezones", I have to disagree with that too. Such a format would prevent a lot of very good battlers to come up against each other (also, timezones like the one I mentioned before would probably be underpopulated and overshadowed due to their lesser overall quality). Even large timezone differences are hardly an issue when you have 2-3 weeks to come up for a match. Most times (I'm not calling out any individuals here, though), matches are not done in time due to people getting lazy about building a team or making efforts to contact each other.

Also, sorry, but saying "If you cannot join tournaments due to timezones issues, make one on your own!" is not an answer. I could run a tournament(and I will, in the future, but not for this reason), but this clearly cannot be the solution. We must arrive to a result which allow people from all over the world to be able to come up against each other (not on separate "timezone tourneys") in a fair and acceptable way. And so far, raising the cap to 128 seems the best way to me. Of course, if someone comes up with a better solution, or shows why 128-man is such a problem, I'm all ears. So far, though, I do not find the proposal I read satisfying (if the majority thinks differently, I defer to your superiority^^)
 
I would suggest making all sign ups atleast 48 hours long. I mean look at it, you get 64 participants in 2 hours and you the tournament. Why can't the sign ups be open for a while until you hit a point where sign ups are at a standstill? If you're not online that day or just at an opposite timezone, then that immediately excludes you from the tournament.
 
Zarator said:
I'm glad you agree, and let me assure you another time that the fact I mentioned you did not mean I think you did a bad thing or anything. You have all my respect^^
I know you weren't trying to say anything about how I did that wrong. What I'm saying is that I know firsthand what happens, and I'd love to have people like JabbatheGriffin, Gouki, Earthworm, and KnightoftheWind in my tournament. Those 4 are just specific examples of those who missed out on the sign-ups.
 
I agree with what you have said, as I also agreed with you in the "Just Clause tournament" sign ups topic. I strongly dislike the handpicking method because I believe in a fair and just way of choosing participants. Just because someone is well known doesn't necessarily make them a better choice for a tourney.

I think that we should move the standard up to 128 since a 64 man fills up in a couple of hours leaving a lot of people out.
 
@zarator. good points, well made, i concede them.

I do think that is isnt really fair to tell hosts, who take on this hassle by their own free will to do more. Especially if we are not willing to do it ourselves. (this is not an accusation, this thread hasnt been conducted in that manner)
A 128-man tourney is probably the most satisfactory solution (followed by cantab's random selection), while it would be great i dont think we have the right to complain about it if the hosts dont want to take on the extra work.
The next problem is what happens if the 128 man tourney gets filled up? Not beyond the realms of possibility, you still need to discriminate, random selection? Or if it doesnt get filled? less likely but possible, that would be very tough.
 
I personally agree with Arin's Idea. Let signups stay up for 48 hours, and see how many people are interested. If you get enough people to make a 256 man tourney, by all means do so. 48 hours is plenty of time for someone to sign up, and if they dont checkk in two days, they dont deserve to be in.
 
Speaking as someone who missed out on the Item Restriction Tournament, I feel I need to express my thoughts. Now, I like the 48 hour dealio, but I do have an alternate solution. For those who think that 64 is too low and 128 is too much, I have the best medium in mind: a 96-man tournament. It basically plays like a regular tournament, but with one round-robin round (usually finals or semi-finals, to avoid time issues). The benefit is that you can fit an additional 32 players to your tournament, and 96 players is easier to manage than 128 players. I'll like to see your thoughts on this.
 
Actually i was thinking about the possibility of a 96-man tourney with a round robin phase. Lets try and fill this out abit.
It will play like a normal tourney untill the semi-finals. So you have 6 people in the semi-final. I presume you spilt these into two groups of 3 (according to where they are in the draw). Then each will playoff against eachother within the groups. If each player wins one game (equal points) i guess it will be decided on how well you performed. But what if all the games in a group finished 1-0 or maybe all 2-0 (these are not too unlikely).
How can we then differentiate between the players. Success in the previous rounds of the tournament? Redo the round robin group untill seperable?
This could get quite gruelling towards the end of a tournament. It might annoy people having to face the same person twice in a tournament and being knocked out in the semifinal on a minor thing like losing by 2-0 instead of 1-0.

I think the concept is good but details need to be ironed out.
i like the idea of open registration with the tournament size fitting the demand.
 
You can have tournaments with non power-of-two participants if you use byes. Usually they're in the first round. Byes would have to be either randomly chosen or done based on an objective ranking. Yes, byes aren't fair, but single-elimination tournaments aren't fair period.

Also, to refute claims that any random processes are being biased - have someone other than the tournament organiser do the random draws. The mods that accept/reject tournament concepts would be the obvious candidates.
 
Actually i was thinking about the possibility of a 96-man tourney with a round robin phase. Lets try and fill this out abit.
It will play like a normal tourney untill the semi-finals. So you have 6 people in the semi-final. I presume you spilt these into two groups of 3 (according to where they are in the draw). Then each will playoff against eachother within the groups. If each player wins one game (equal points) i guess it will be decided on how well you performed. But what if all the games in a group finished 1-0 or maybe all 2-0 (these are not too unlikely).
How can we then differentiate between the players. Success in the previous rounds of the tournament? Redo the round robin group untill seperable?
This could get quite gruelling towards the end of a tournament. It might annoy people having to face the same person twice in a tournament and being knocked out in the semifinal on a minor thing like losing by 2-0 instead of 1-0.

I think the concept is good but details need to be ironed out.
i like the idea of open registration with the tournament size fitting the demand.

Wait, what? So you're saying that the outcome of the battle is made irrelavent if the battle was close? What sense does that make? That's quite frankly one of the most unfair systems I've heard. Oh, I beat Earthworm in the semi-finals, but it doesn't matter because it was a close match! Now I'll have to face him again and again until the match isn't close!

If they win, they win, there's no need for all this other bullshit, you're just making the tournament more complicated then it should be.
 
@zarator. good points, well made, i concede them.

I do think that is isnt really fair to tell hosts, who take on this hassle by their own free will to do more. Especially if we are not willing to do it ourselves. (this is not an accusation, this thread hasnt been conducted in that manner)
A 128-man tourney is probably the most satisfactory solution (followed by cantab's random selection), while it would be great i dont think we have the right to complain about it if the hosts dont want to take on the extra work.
The next problem is what happens if the 128 man tourney gets filled up? Not beyond the realms of possibility, you still need to discriminate, random selection? Or if it doesnt get filled? less likely but possible, that would be very tough.

First of all, tournament host has never meant to be an easy job. You should take it upon yourself only if you think you can cope with the related responsibilities. And an "extra responsibility", if you want to call it like that, is a minor evil which would make the entire Tournament process much more smooth.
If the 128 man get filled up, well, you proceed the same ol' way, you close the thread and you start the tournament. However, with 128 it is much more probable that, by the time you reach the cap, it will have passed almost one day or so (I don't see the need for 48 hours, honestly)

Speaking as someone who missed out on the Item Restriction Tournament, I feel I need to express my thoughts. Now, I like the 48 hour dealio, but I do have an alternate solution. For those who think that 64 is too low and 128 is too much, I have the best medium in mind: a 96-man tournament. It basically plays like a regular tournament, but with one round-robin round (usually finals or semi-finals, to avoid time issues). The benefit is that you can fit an additional 32 players to your tournament, and 96 players is easier to manage than 128 players. I'll like to see your thoughts on this.

96 is still too low in my opinion. Aside from the fact that I do not exactly like round robins, I think that the "round robin formats" (48, 96, 192, and so on), should be the "alternative", and not the standard. In other words, if, say, you make a 128-man tournament, but for some reason you get only 104 submissions after 24 hours (I'm still assuming 24h as a limit), you may turn the format to 96, start the tournament and accept the remaining (in this case) 8 people as subs. But otherwise, I think it would be better to stick to 2^n-man tournaments (32,64,128,256 etc. for those who were wondering^^). Also, I think that, especially if we go for the 48 hours, 192 would be a much more realistic number than 96. So, for now, I'd say 128/24 hours is the best compromise. As a last word, I appreciate the input, and I'm happy the community feels this as a problem as much as I do^^

EDIT:

You can have tournaments with non power-of-two participants if you use byes. Usually they're in the first round. Byes would have to be either randomly chosen or done based on an objective ranking. Yes, byes aren't fair, but single-elimination tournaments aren't fair period.

What does the bolded part mean? Also, I don't buy the comparison between the unfairness of byes and the unfairness of single-elimination tournaments (and I hinted at this in the OP). There is a huge difference between a completely luck-based chance (byes, assuming they are random - because otherwise we are back at method (b) and issue (2) of my OP) and a partially luck-based chance (single-elimination battles). If all tournament battles would get to be decided with a coinflip, then yes, you would be right about the same grade of unfairness lying on both sides. Bu they don't.

About the way to make the random process fair, I'll concede you that. But I still think it is a system which would make much more players upset than the problems which would solve. I'd prefer to have a bit more overtaxed host, rather than more than a hundred players (this is not an exaggerated number if we speak about 24+ hours sign-ups) upset, and probably for good reason.
 
I dislike the idea of a 128-man tournament. Consider that many unofficial (Rather, not hosted specifically by Smogon) tournaments have a gimmick of sorts. The gimmick is fun for a bit, but with the end result of the tournament being some minor recognition at best, an extra round of the tournament can be a huge turn-off. Most gimmicks are only amusing the first few times you play them. I don't think adding an extra round to the tournament is a good solution because it will tend to drag out the gimmick and increase the likelihood of it becoming boring.
cantab said:
d)Sign-ups are open for a time period specified upon thread posting. Once signups close, participants are chosen at random. No issue with over-short signup periods, no bias from handpicking, and no requirement to increase tournament size.
This, however, I find to be the optimal solution. To address your (Zarator's) issue that this is unfair for the first poster who doesn't get picked, so long as this method of selection is indicated in the original post he knows what he's getting into. He knows, regardless of being the first poster, that he may not get chosen. That alone makes complaining about it silly, as it is the most objective manner of solving the problem without bloating the tournament sizes. (And you know what you're getting into - it's not like you posted first expecting a guaranteed-in)
 
I agree with 128 people tourtament idea but here's another idea why don't we hankpick based on activity not popularity but if this does not work then yeah 128 people is the best solution
 
I dislike the idea of a 128-man tournament. Consider that many unofficial (Rather, not hosted specifically by Smogon) tournaments have a gimmick of sorts. The gimmick is fun for a bit, but with the end result of the tournament being some minor recognition at best, an extra round of the tournament can be a huge turn-off. Most gimmicks are only amusing the first few times you play them. I don't think adding an extra round to the tournament is a good solution because it will tend to drag out the gimmick and increase the likelihood of it becoming boring.

I don't think people would be discouraged from joining tournaments just because of another battle. Also, if you are right, then tournaments like Riding the Metronome or Wyoming (which are truly gimmicky) would not have had the attention they got throughout their entire course.

This, however, I find to be the optimal solution. To address your (Zarator's) issue that this is unfair for the first poster who doesn't get picked, so long as this method of selection is indicated in the original post he knows what he's getting into. He knows, regardless of being the first poster, that he may not get chosen. That alone makes complaining about it silly, as it is the most objective manner of solving the problem without bloating the tournament sizes. (And you know what you're getting into - it's not like you posted first expecting a guaranteed-in)

Still, I don't think a person which get repeteadly tossed out would be much more happy than if he got repeteadly late for the sign-ups. That method may solve some of the issues I outlined above, but not the underlying problem which caused those issues in the first place: The too high population of Smogon (at least in term of tournament players) in comparison to the 64-man format.

I agree with 128 people tourtament idea but here's another idea why don't we hankpick based on activity not popularity but if this does not work then yeah 128 people is the best solution

Activity is not a good meter, either. A lot of good battlers are active very seldomly, and sometimes only for tournaments, yet they are much better than a Wi-fier (no offense to people who play wi-fi, just an example) who post everyday but who isn't a good battler to begin with.

EDIT: @Arin: Don't get me wrong. I am not contrary to the 48 hours limit. I just felt it was too much, but if 48 hours happen to be better, by all means I agree with it. About the 96 participant after 48 hours, I wonder when you ran up that tournament. Nowadays it would get over 150 subscriptions in 2 days.
 
First of all, tournament host has never meant to be an easy job. You should take it upon yourself only if you think you can cope with the related responsibilities. And an "extra responsibility", if you want to call it like that, is a minor evil which would make the entire Tournament process much more smooth.

It is obvious that the amount of participants in a tournament is completely up to the host. But, the host should be notified that he should leave the sign ups open for atleast 48 hours to let everyone have a chance of signing up. Unless if the host does not wish to exceed a certain number of participants. Take DJX for example, he closed the sign ups of his tournament because he was unnaware of this fact.

If the 128 man get filled up, well, you proceed the same ol' way, you close the thread and you start the tournament. However, with 128 it is much more probable that, by the time you reach the cap, it will have passed almost one day or so (I don't see the need for 48 hours, honestly)

That is an assumption. I can state the same and say that it's unprobable that 128 spots would be filled in less than 48 hours. Signs up gradually subside in time. While 48 hours is a reasonable amount of time for many reasons (timezone differences, not being on to check what's going on due to something important, etc). It is to provide equal chance for all members.

96 is still too low in my opinion. Aside from the fact that I do not exactly like round robins, I think that the "round robin formats" (48, 96, 192, and so on), should be the "alternative", and not the standard. In other words, if, say, you make a 128-man tournament, but for some reason you get only 104 submissions after 24 hours (I'm still assuming 24h as a limit), you may turn the format to 96, start the tournament and accept the remaining (in this case) 8 people as subs. But otherwise, I think it would be better to stick to 2^n-man tournaments (32,64,128,256 etc. for those who were wondering^^). Also, I think that, especially if we go for the 48 hours, 192 would be a much more realistic number than 96. So, for now, I'd say 128/24 hours is the best compromise. As a last word, I appreciate the input, and I'm happy the community feels this as a problem as much as I do^^

I've hosted the "Exclusion Tournament" about a year ago in which I used my method of letting the sign ups open for atleast 48 hours. It ended up being a standstill at 96 participants. So I've decided to make it a 96 man tournament. The tournament was successfully completed. The only problem you might say about Round Robins is the unfortunate draw between the three finalists. But, I like the feeling of three winners rather than excluding those 32 participants and formatting it to 64 man tournament.

Above all 48 hours is a very reasonable time. Overall it takes more than a month for a tournament to complete. Why can't a host commit a negligible amount of time for sign ups.

I dislike the idea of a 128-man tournament. Consider that many unofficial (Rather, not hosted specifically by Smogon) tournaments have a gimmick of sorts. The gimmick is fun for a bit, but with the end result of the tournament being some minor recognition at best, an extra round of the tournament can be a huge turn-off. Most gimmicks are only amusing the first few times you play them. I don't think adding an extra round to the tournament is a good solution because it will tend to drag out the gimmick and increase the likelihood of it becoming boring.

Lets try using logic to solve this issue.

Lets say you cap the tournament at 64 participants (which signed up in a 5 hour span). You have excluded everyone that lives in the other timezone or missed the sign ups at that time. This wouldn't make those unfortunate people happy. While if you let the sign ups open for 48 hours instead, then you have given a fair chance for users to sign up. Because of this chance, the tournament now has 128 participants.

Now lets look at the difference. 128 participants is twice the amount of members than 64 participants. A 100% increase of 64 participants. Now lets look at the "round" difference between 64 participants and 128 participants. There are six rounds in 64 man tournament. There are seven rounds in a 128 man tournament. Notice that adding an extra round only made about a 16.7% increment of rounds. I am blatantly neglecting that time and effort needed to increase the number of participants by 100% simply to prove that your assumption of "adding an extra round would have a negative outcome by making the tournament and battles boring."
 
d)Sign-ups are open for a time period specified upon thread posting. Once signups close, participants are chosen at random. No issue with over-short signup periods, no bias from handpicking, and no requirement to increase tournament size.

They do this for mafia, so why not tourneys?

... this could only be done if a person like a tourtament director would take this job to have max fairness

I'm pretty sure they have something like this with mafia as well.
 
You could, for example, open up a certain number of places at a certain time window to suit a certain time zone, then simply open up more places in a later time window, when different people are on. This would mean that getting in would still be based to an extent on activity (with more active members being more likely to be on at a particular time) but also allow most people the chance to be in a tournament.

And you cannot just say "it's only one extra round" - it is a lot of battles, which makes it difficult for the host (e.g in ensuring all battles are completed)
 
Wait, what? So you're saying that the outcome of the battle is made irrelavent if the battle was close? What sense does that make? That's quite frankly one of the most unfair systems I've heard. Oh, I beat Earthworm in the semi-finals, but it doesn't matter because it was a close match! Now I'll have to face him again and again until the match isn't close!

If they win, they win, there's no need for all this other bullshit, you're just making the tournament more complicated then it should be.
Simple misunderstanding. I was saying that in a round robin of three players. for example; yourself, zarator and myself. If i beat zarator, zarator beats you and you beat me. Then we are all on the same number of wins (1) and the same number of loses (1) so there is no was to distinguish. My point was what happens AFTER that? I suggested using how convincingly you win (only after the round robin has been inconclusive).

In a normal tournament if the win, they win. But in a round robin round like you suggest there can be overall draws. This is the exact confusion i warned in my post.

What does the bolded part mean?

Nothing complicated. A power-of-two number is just one that can be divided by two over and over untill you get to one (i.e. normal tournament sizes). 2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256... are powers of two.
 
My point was what happens AFTER that? I suggested using how convincingly you win (only after the round robin has been inconclusive).
Then which is a more convincing win: winning 6-0 with all your pokes down to less than 10% and SR up on your side, or winning 1-0 with your last remaining poke having only taken one lot of SR damage?
 
Exactly what i was proposing if you read my post.
The point of my post was to ask the question of what if they were all 1-0s in similar circumstance (this is not unlikely as we can assume semi-finalists will be of a good standard and the matche smay be tight)?
Thats when i remarked that it would have to be done by i) record in the tournament so far or ii) resetting the round robin. I think those are the two options.
 
Back
Top