Talk:Tournament

Round Robins

"However, the worst part about round robin tournaments is that there's no epic final match which makes it boring." Several things are wrong with that sentence, mainly epic and boring. Those 2 are highly opinionated words, as some people find the final match lame, since it could be a completely one sided match, and then boring, because they don't really need to care about how much someone lost. Epic and boring are too opinionated for the sentence to be valid, and not having a final match is not relevant to the actual disadvantages. MegaTron1XD 14:34, 1 January 2012 (EST)

Per the above, not having a final match to determine the winner of the tournament isn't an objective disadvantage of the bracket type, unlike the time issues a round robin brings once you start going over 12 players in size. I'll also add that if a final match is wanted, the TO could always have the top two players at the end of a round robin do one final set to determine the winner of the tournament. Omega Tyrant 15:16, 1 January 2012 (EST)

I'm not talking about a double round robin tournament, I'm talking about a single round robin. Some people would prefer that there would be a final match in a tournament, otherwise it wouldn't be a good tournament. "Some people find the final match lame" ????? Who and why would anyone find the final match lame? It's worth more than all the other matches. That is a bad disadvantage for some people. Avengingbandit 00:53, 2 January 2012 (EST)

The sentence itself is highly opinionated with the words epic and boring. A final match is not worth more than the other matches, due to match ups that people of each character find exciting (San vs Ally would be more exciting for me, rather than the final Ally vs M2K). Different matchups and different character preferences are what would determine if a match is exciting for someone. The final simply pits the best, not the most entertaining fighters. The statement is not a relevant disadvantage because of the hundreds of different favorite matches among tournament goers, leading to less people than you think liking the final match. MegaTron1XD 02:13, 2 January 2012 (EST)

I'm not talking about a double round robin tournament, I'm talking about a single round robin.

Doesn't matter. If the TO wants a final set in a round robin, he can have the two best players play a final set in the end of the tournament to determine the winner, rather than just declaring the best player at the end the winner.

And stop misusing the term "double round robin". A double round robin is when every player play each other twice.

Some people would prefer that there would be a final match in a tournament, otherwise it wouldn't be a good tournament. "Some people find the final match lame" ????? Who and why would anyone find the final match lame? It's worth more than all the other matches. That is a bad disadvantage for some people.

What's the general purpose of a tournament? To find the best player. Is a final match necessary to find that? No.

As such, the lack of a final match is not an objective disadvantage. Not to mention, the TO can make their own changes to a tournament type to fit their desire, thus as explained before, a final match can done anyway in a round robin. And where's your citation for "some people"? Or are these "some people" made up? Omega Tyrant 08:23, 2 January 2012 (EST)

statement is a redundant tautology

"*Regional Tournament: A large tournament that draws significant attendance from neighboring regions. Only top professional players can usually expect to win a regional tournament."

Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a top professional player defined as someone who wins these types of tournaments? If someone not considered a top professional wins this type of tournament, they will immediately be reclassified as one. For example, Emukiller was so reclassified, in the eyes of his smasher profile on this very site, after his massive upset victory in SKTAR 3 Project M. So if you unpack the statement, it's saying:

"Only players who win regional tournaments can usually expect to win a regional tournament."

Of course when you put it that way it sounds silly.70.198.136.165 22:37, 18 September 2014 (EDT)

Side Events section

I think the section, specifically the part about Brawl mods, should be modified. Right now it implies that Project M and Brawl Minus are nearly equal in popularity, which is not true; and that Project M is only treated as a side event, not a main event alongside Melee and/or Brawl, at major tournaments; also not true. Maybe all this was once the case but if so then the section is outdated.70.198.136.165 23:31, 18 September 2014 (EDT)

"Violates policy"

Tell me how the edit I made "violates policy." If anything, you're the one violating policy by reverting the edit I just made to the page. Is this another one of your dumb excuses to try and stop me from getting information on the page? Stop abusing your admin powers. Awesome Cardinal 2000 20:16, 9 September 2015 (EDT)

It doesn't violate policy, but it's worded extremely subjectively, which is obviously frowned upon in an encyclopedic article. Nyargleblargle (Talk · Contribs) 20:26, 9 September 2015 (EDT)

If it doesn't violate policy, then Miles shouldn't be accusing me of doing so.

Even though the wording may seem a bit harsh, the article still does not favor one viewpoint over the other, and is simply stating the facts of what happened in the Smash tournament scene. Information about the reception of something by the public is an absolute necessity for encyclopedia articles. Look at all the articles on Wikipedia and other places that include sections on the reception. The article may include the negative viewpoints of some community members, but to remove this information and pretend that every's all positive and happy is to misinform readers and hide from them valuable knowledge that is essential to any encyclopedic article. Awesome Cardinal 2000 20:37, 9 September 2015 (EDT)

The policy violation is mentioning Project M. Miles (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2015 (EDT)

First of all, if that's why I was violating the policy, you should have at least stated that in your edit summary. Secondly, Project M is a huge part of the Smash Bros. tournament scene and its mentioning is essential to this article. If there's some ruling saying that PM is not to be mentioned on articles without PM in their title or something like that, it needs to be changed as it inhibits growth on pages such as this one. Third, if PM really is the only thing violating policy, then only that part should be removed, while everything else not mentioning PM should stay. Awesome Cardinal 2000 22:55, 9 September 2015 (EDT)

That was far from the only problem with the content you reverted, but it was the part that violated policy. The current standing policy is that if a page is not a) explicitly about Project M or b) about a specific Smasher/tournament where Project M is involved, it doesn't exist and isn't to be mentioned at all. Miles (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2015 (EDT)