The problems and solutions I describe in this post relate specifically to double elimination, and not to single elimination.
At the moment, there are several problems with double elimination. The most significant is how double elimination handles round robins. Currently, there is no "official" way to handle round robin in double elimination (i.e how many people drop into Loser's Bracket, which round do they drop into, etc). Several months ago, I asked a TD this question, and I received the answer "do what your heart says". If double elimination follows the format for round robins of single elimination (winner moves on, two losers drop down), then double elimination requires 3(!) round robins (Winner's Finals, Loser's Semifinals, Loser's Finals). Each round robin has the potential to reset, adding weeks to the tournament. Additionally, round robins are generally unpopular in both single and double elimination, as evidenced by the insistence of the player base that OST not use a 1536 size bracket. In summary, round robins are both unpopular and have the potential to significantly impact the duration of a tour in double elimination.
I strongly feel that 3*2^N brackets, henceforth called "odd brackets" make little sense in double elimination, and I identify them as the main culprit for many of the problems with the format. Triple round robin is incredibly bad, and the existence of odd brackets stop double elimination from advancing as a format (see my previous Tournament Policy post for an example).
Here's my proposal.
Remove the odd bracket ranges and increase the Max Bye %. As many will remember for OST, the vast majority of the player base wanted the TDs to ignore the Max Bye % (currently 10%) to avoid round robin finals. OST was started with around 17% byes. I see no reason why this can't be established as policy for a format in which odd brackets cause more damage. I think exactly 25% Max Byes would be effective, and I do not think there is anything wrong with having different Max Bye %s for single elimination and double elimination. The new bracket ranges would be the following.
Size: 16 12 - 23
Size: 32 24 - 47
Size: 64 48 - 95
Size: 128 96 - 191
Size: 256 192 - 383
I think this would an appropriate solution that would not compromise the competitiveness of the tour. For anybody with the potential to win the tour, whether or not they receive a R1 bye should be inconsequential. This is especially true for double elimination brackets, where there is a "safety net" coming from the existence of the Loser's Bracket. Furthermore, from the perspective of player enjoyment, I would wager that round robin and it's potential to extend the tournament is more impactful then whether or not they receive a R1 Bye. Crucially, this solution changes an already existing system, rather than implementing a new system for hosts to learn. Because the largest double elimination tournament on Smogon (to the best of my knowledge) is 256 Size (CG OU Seasonal), the large bracket sizes that can end up with hundreds of byes aren't relevant.
If the TD team is unwilling to implement a higher Bye % for double elimination, I would ask that they implement something for double elimination that prevents us from needing three round robins. That's really the biggest issue here.
At the moment, there are several problems with double elimination. The most significant is how double elimination handles round robins. Currently, there is no "official" way to handle round robin in double elimination (i.e how many people drop into Loser's Bracket, which round do they drop into, etc). Several months ago, I asked a TD this question, and I received the answer "do what your heart says". If double elimination follows the format for round robins of single elimination (winner moves on, two losers drop down), then double elimination requires 3(!) round robins (Winner's Finals, Loser's Semifinals, Loser's Finals). Each round robin has the potential to reset, adding weeks to the tournament. Additionally, round robins are generally unpopular in both single and double elimination, as evidenced by the insistence of the player base that OST not use a 1536 size bracket. In summary, round robins are both unpopular and have the potential to significantly impact the duration of a tour in double elimination.
I strongly feel that 3*2^N brackets, henceforth called "odd brackets" make little sense in double elimination, and I identify them as the main culprit for many of the problems with the format. Triple round robin is incredibly bad, and the existence of odd brackets stop double elimination from advancing as a format (see my previous Tournament Policy post for an example).
Here's my proposal.
Remove the odd bracket ranges and increase the Max Bye %. As many will remember for OST, the vast majority of the player base wanted the TDs to ignore the Max Bye % (currently 10%) to avoid round robin finals. OST was started with around 17% byes. I see no reason why this can't be established as policy for a format in which odd brackets cause more damage. I think exactly 25% Max Byes would be effective, and I do not think there is anything wrong with having different Max Bye %s for single elimination and double elimination. The new bracket ranges would be the following.
Size: 16 12 - 23
Size: 32 24 - 47
Size: 64 48 - 95
Size: 128 96 - 191
Size: 256 192 - 383
I think this would an appropriate solution that would not compromise the competitiveness of the tour. For anybody with the potential to win the tour, whether or not they receive a R1 bye should be inconsequential. This is especially true for double elimination brackets, where there is a "safety net" coming from the existence of the Loser's Bracket. Furthermore, from the perspective of player enjoyment, I would wager that round robin and it's potential to extend the tournament is more impactful then whether or not they receive a R1 Bye. Crucially, this solution changes an already existing system, rather than implementing a new system for hosts to learn. Because the largest double elimination tournament on Smogon (to the best of my knowledge) is 256 Size (CG OU Seasonal), the large bracket sizes that can end up with hundreds of byes aren't relevant.
If the TD team is unwilling to implement a higher Bye % for double elimination, I would ask that they implement something for double elimination that prevents us from needing three round robins. That's really the biggest issue here.
