We should acknowledge HA and incorporate it into competitive play

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale
  3. We should acknowledge HA and incorporate it into competitive play
Link versus Cloud 3 years ago#1
Online tournaments should have seeds based on prior results and the higher seed gets host advantage kind of like home court advantage in sports.

So during a best of 3 set HA goes to the higher seed in game 1, then the lower seed in game 2, and if it gets there back to the higher seed in game 3.

In a best of 5 it goes higher seed, higher seed, lower seed, lower seed, higher seed

I know its not the greatest idea but its better than the alternative which is to pretty much end competitive play
Not changing this sig until Cleveland wins a title started 6/2/07

User Info: blaze19_0X

blaze19_0X
3 years ago#2
So high seeds both get better brackets AND host advantage?

Yeah...no.

That'll discourage new players from entering the scene even further.

Of course seeding is needed and makes sense, so that's going to stay. But them getting HA as well is a bit too much.

User Info: AylasHero

AylasHero
3 years ago#3
I gotta admit this is a positive idea. Is there a way to somehow make this fair?

User Info: blaze19_0X

blaze19_0X
3 years ago#4
AylasHero posted...
I gotta admit this is a positive idea. Is there a way to somehow make this fair?


Not really. Even if you argue HA based on seeding is fair...what happens when 2 players of the same or similar seeding face each other? Like in the finals?

User Info: SavageTrooper

SavageTrooper
3 years ago#5
AylasHero posted...
I gotta admit this is a positive idea. Is there a way to somehow make this fair?


If HA is real here, it won't be fair no matter what you do, someone having the advantage is still unfair
PSASBR: SIR DAN SINCE THE BEGINNING BABY!
PSN: SAVAGETROOPER
Link versus Cloud 3 years ago#6
AylasHero posted...
I gotta admit this is a positive idea. Is there a way to somehow make this fair?


Maybe instead of making tournament seeding based purely on past results make them based on a round robin group stage where groups are formed based on prior results. This stage is held before the knock-out rounds kind of like how soccer does it.

Say for example 16 people enter a tournament. Break them down into four groups of four based on prior results (ie the 1,8,9,16 seed in a group 2,7,10,15 in a group etc...). In each group every participant plays each other twice (once with each having host advantage). Keep track of everyone's match record/stock record/time of match as tiebreakers and seed 1-16 for knockout based on that.

Then based on those seedings (determined from equal playing field matches) the higher seed gets the host advantage as described in my first post. And yes it is inherently a bit unfair but the unfairness is determined by who earns it. Its like Home court in sports as I said. It would be fairer just to play every game on a neutral court but home court is used to reward higher seeds.

example with just 8 entrants:

Group 1
Match Stock
A 6-0 18-4
B 3-3 13-12
C 3-3 13-13
D 0-6 3-18

Group 2
E 6-0 18-5
F 4-2 16-6
G 2-4 7-14
H 0-6 2-18

Seeds

#1-A
#2-E
#3-F
#4-B
#5-C
#6-G
#7-D
#8-H

Round 1 knockout

AvsH
EvsD
FvsG
BvsC

Host advantage given to players on the left
Not changing this sig until Cleveland wins a title started 6/2/07

User Info: blaze19_0X

blaze19_0X
3 years ago#7
Link versus Cloud posted...
AylasHero posted...
I gotta admit this is a positive idea. Is there a way to somehow make this fair?


Maybe instead of making tournament seeding based purely on past results make them based on a round robin group stage where groups are formed based on prior results. This stage is held before the knock-out rounds kind of like how soccer does it.

Say for example 16 people enter a tournament. Break them down into four groups of four based on prior results (ie the 1,8,9,16 seed in a group 2,7,10,15 in a group etc...). In each group every participant plays each other twice (once with each having host advantage). Keep track of everyone's match record/stock record/time of match as tiebreakers and seed 1-16 for knockout based on that.

Then based on those seedings (determined from equal playing field matches) the higher seed gets the host advantage as described in my first post. And yes it is inherently a bit unfair but the unfairness is determined by who earns it. Its like Home court in sports as I said. It would be fairer just to play every game on a neutral court but home court is used to reward higher seeds.

example with just 8 entrants:

Group 1
Match Stock
A 6-0 18-4
B 3-3 13-12
C 3-3 13-13
D 0-6 3-18

Group 2
E 6-0 18-5
F 4-2 16-6
G 2-4 7-14
H 0-6 2-18

Seeds

#1-A
#2-E
#3-F
#4-B
#5-C
#6-G
#7-D
#8-H

Round 1 knockout

AvsH
EvsD
FvsG
BvsC

Host advantage given to players on the left


That would take way too long. Tournaments already tend to take too long to finish.

User Info: Crabhammar

Crabhammar
3 years ago#8
blaze19_0X posted...
Link versus Cloud posted...
AylasHero posted...
I gotta admit this is a positive idea. Is there a way to somehow make this fair?


Maybe instead of making tournament seeding based purely on past results make them based on a round robin group stage where groups are formed based on prior results. This stage is held before the knock-out rounds kind of like how soccer does it.

Say for example 16 people enter a tournament. Break them down into four groups of four based on prior results (ie the 1,8,9,16 seed in a group 2,7,10,15 in a group etc...). In each group every participant plays each other twice (once with each having host advantage). Keep track of everyone's match record/stock record/time of match as tiebreakers and seed 1-16 for knockout based on that.

Then based on those seedings (determined from equal playing field matches) the higher seed gets the host advantage as described in my first post. And yes it is inherently a bit unfair but the unfairness is determined by who earns it. Its like Home court in sports as I said. It would be fairer just to play every game on a neutral court but home court is used to reward higher seeds.

example with just 8 entrants:

Group 1
Match Stock
A 6-0 18-4
B 3-3 13-12
C 3-3 13-13
D 0-6 3-18

Group 2
E 6-0 18-5
F 4-2 16-6
G 2-4 7-14
H 0-6 2-18

Seeds

#1-A
#2-E
#3-F
#4-B
#5-C
#6-G
#7-D
#8-H

Round 1 knockout

AvsH
EvsD
FvsG
BvsC

Host advantage given to players on the left


That would take way too long. Tournaments already tend to take too long to finish.
assets18.pokemon.com/assets/cms/img/video-games/pokemonxy/characters/pokemonxy_froakie.jpg

User Info: EX_Bortthog

EX_Bortthog
3 years ago#9
Its called a "league"

Its common in fighters to run them
#1 Cactus
Link versus Cloud 3 years ago#10
If it would take too long you could have the RR stage replace the double elimination aspect.

If there are 16 entrants just have 4 groups of 4. Each group plays a "home and home" (of being host) with everyone else in their group as described above. The 4 group winners advance to the semifinals seeded by group performance.

#1 faces #4 in a best of 5 set with #1 getting HA
#2 faces #3 in a best of 5 set with #2 getting HA

winners meet in the finals with the highest seed having HA
losers meet in a 3rd place match with the highest seed having HA

the number of groups and the # of participants per group could vary based on the entrants.

This could also motivate more people to play as people who are not as good would still be able to win games as host and play longer than 2 sets in general double elimination games. It would also give rise to a new meta at the highest level on how to counter act HA.
Not changing this sig until Cleveland wins a title started 6/2/07
  1. Boards
  2. PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale
  3. We should acknowledge HA and incorporate it into competitive play

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived