Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

MSF45's D/P Wi-Fi Tourny! 1st Place Skarmbliss; 2nd Place Pablo; 3rd Place Regis Neo!

Sorry for the late response guys, my Internet went down yesterday. But I'm back for now and hopefully it doesn't happen again. Anyway, here's my responses.

Spoink: Read what I replied to Pablo's quote since you two said similar things.

There shouldn't even BE a losers bracket and we wouldnt have this issue! we would have a clear top 8 and just go from there, but there is a losers bracket, and thus we get 12, and after single elim we get 6, then 3, so the question is, do you award byes for Top 8, Top 4 or Top 2? makes the most sense to award them for Top 8. Hw todecide them I just thoght the higher ranked players would be fair, its ok for you guy to disagree butthen PROPOSE something. Getting rid of the Losers bracket and just moving on from the play offs solves this, but obviously no one wants that.

And trust me, I don't want special treatment, I want to battle as much as possible, I'm jut giving my view on te LOGICAL and FAIR thing to do. If you guys have any beter idea to move on from 12 to 6 to 3 to 2 then be my guests.

I'm assuming that you didn't read the centered and italicized caption under the playoffs, Loser's Bracket, and/or Loser's Bracket Playoffs? That explains how it will be ran. Anyone left with a 3-0 record will get a bye if/when it comes down to the time of it being un-even. As for why I'm doing the loser's bracket into the playoffs, it's so everyone gets to keep battling and having fun and has another shot at getting the listed prizes. Like Spike said before I even started the tourny "I didn't see something like that, with such a high value as a prize for a simple wifi tourny". Not exact words, I know but just restating what he said for smart allics who may reply to this or quote it with complaints -_-. Not to mention, I wasn't expecting it to come out with 8 people to begin with, so I announced the Loser's Bracket leading into the playoffs before it was determined and felt I should have kept my word. Hope that this explains most of what you needed/wanted to know.

Why not just do knock out random pairings that will decide one winner.

I thought about this as well. I decided to do it the way I have it as three rounds because if two people capable of going deep into the playoffs pair up against each other in the Loser's Bracket (and they were paired up against some of the top players and had bad games in the first 3 rounds which is why they were in the playoffs in the first place) they get knocked out and let someone that is worse then them originally pass by in place of them. That's why I have it the way it is. In other words, so the more skillful player advances in the tournament and not the luckier player. Get it?
 
So the preliminaries meant nothing, 75% of us make the cut anyway. -_-

Yes, they did mean something. Six people that didn't have the skill to make the top cut didn't make it...it eliminates six people. Not to mention, the first three rounds have an impact on who you play during the playoffs and who makes it into the playoffs and who gets eliminated and who is pressured to give it all they have to make the playoffs. Anyway, if you want, I can do top 10 instead of top 12. Either way, it's up to you.
 
Last edited:
Yes, they did mean something. Six people that didn't have the skill to make the top cut didn't make it...it eliminates six people. Not to mention, the first three rounds have an impact on who you play during the playoffs and who makes it into the playoffs and who gets eliminated and who is pressured to give it all they have to make the playoffs. Anyway, if you want, I can do top 10 instead of top 12. Either way, it's up to you.

That's still pathetic, we have a top 8. Loser's Bracket is completely uneeded.
 
MSF45 I did read that in the case of an odd number in a certain cut, the 3-0 will get preferrence for the bye, but what if there are 2 3-0's? or 3? How do you decide then? It's better to have a clean cut since Top 8 rather than wait so long.
 
I'll try to PM you soon for a battle. My sister is visiting from Texas, so I don't have a ton of time at the moment. Maybe if I'm lucky she'll leave early :x
 
MSF45 I did read that in the case of an odd number in a certain cut, the 3-0 will get preferrence for the bye, but what if there are 2 3-0's? or 3? How do you decide then? It's better to have a clean cut since Top 8 rather than wait so long.

There are a few ways to handle this if it turns out to this.

1) I could flip a coin between the two to see who gets the bye.
2) I could do the other pairings first and see who's left, then check to see if they played in the previous matches. That may also determine the bye.


So the preliminaries meant nothing, 75% of us make the cut anyway. -_-


This is why. ^
 
Since a few people are whining like little kids about the Loser's Bracket, maybe to speed things up you could put a strict time limit on it. Just a few days or something. If you don't battle in the time frame, you don't advance?
 
Gimp (TheGimpsta) won't be ready until Saturday. He's in the hospital, (cancer issues) so a time limit wouldn't be fair to him and I'd feel bad. So everyone knows.
 
Pablo, I like your idea, since there are three people undefeated, they shall get byes to the second round in the playoffs. That leaves a clear top 8 cut for the loser's bracket winners and the 4 Playoffs clinches that were made. Then it'll be top 8 again and it goes on. Nicely thought up. Then it moves on from there. Everyone else satisfied with this?

~MSF45
 
Hey guys, just got back yesterday from chemo, so yea, I'm kinda weak. But I'm ready to battle anyone who needs to battle me.
 
hey Gimp, haha, did you happen to read the two posts above yours? By the way, there have been a few slight changes to the way loser's bracket will be operating, I like Pablo's idea. lol.

Update: I re-did loser's bracket pairings. I made it so that nobody plays the same people they played in the original three rounds.
 
Last edited:
You uhh.. might want to look over the pairings again. It's going to be kinda tough for me to play against Blastoise-Shellshocker twice.
 
Oh, sorry about that...I'll fix that.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

fixed
 
Last edited:
Back
Top