I know it sounds strange, but there are things in this world, which can't be explained in 2 sentences. Probably none of you tl;dr posters have ever heard about that that, but it is true.
For realz, you guys hinder the worlds progress. If you are too lazy to read it, then just ignore it, but don't demotivate someone who is posting his idea, which is just above your dumb minds.
He even included pictures for you lazy readers...
I totally agree with you here, in the initial model you can't encounter the same player as earlier before the semi-finals, in the alternative one you can..Also, the initial model is superior to the alternative one because in the latter there are some people playing each other in consecutive rounds.
U mad brah? #.2I know it sounds strange, but there are things in this world, which can't be explained in 2 sentences. Probably none of you tl;dr posters have ever heard about that that, but it is true.
For realz, you guys hinder the worlds progress. If you are too lazy to read it, then just ignore it, but don't demotivate someone who is posting his idea, which is just above your dumb minds.
He even included pictures for you lazy readers...
U mad brah?
U mad brah? #.2I know it sounds strange, but there are things in this world, which can't be explained in 2 sentences. Probably none of you tl;dr posters have ever heard about that that, but it is true.
For realz, you guys hinder the worlds progress. If you are too lazy to read it, then just ignore it, but don't demotivate someone who is posting his idea, which is just above your dumb minds.
He even included pictures for you lazy readers...
U mad brah?
This is not the case. If you look at the basics: 2 groups of 3 will form 1 new group of 3.I really like this tournament setup, I think it is very handy for some big tournaments.
The only downside I can think of is that you need a multiplier of 3 participants (so 3,6,9 etc.)..
As a 2nd up in the 3 player group, you have a 2nd 50% chance to re-enter the tournament.I totally agree with you here, in the initial model you can't encounter the same player as earlier before the semi-finals, in the alternative one you can..
yeah please make another ****ing 10 kilometers long text which i will read ofc! (no ****ing way i;m reading all of it... seriously who read all of this?(no offense tothe maker of this topic..sorry if i;m being a ****.. unintentional))
This is not the case. If you look at the basics: 2 groups of 3 will form 1 new group of 3.
So the multiplier will be 2 just like the conventional model. ( 144-72-36-18-9-4-2-1 )
I do however like the idea of top players being inserted somewhere in the middle.
I ment I liked your first tournament setup better than the secondAs a 2nd up in the 3 player group, you have a 2nd 50% chance to re-enter the tournament.
You will be replaced in the other side of the tournament, so you will only meet the player that has beaten you in final. If you make it that far.
The single reason for this setup is the frustration of players being knocked out by just 1 opponent.
We all know there are factors which can make the best player loose a tournament.
It can be a thrill, but also a big disappointment for the public.
That is why i want to propose this, making each bracket stage a little tournament of its own. (only 3 1v1's tough + one 2nd ups decision game )
Tension is the goal