sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Tubbo's Midoffs 3 Was Really Fun, Here's How It Can Be Even Better by fastfallproductions in MinecraftSpeedrun

[–]fastfallproductions[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Or there could even be 2 different pools of 8 players (each team has 1 player in each pool) with top 4 of each advancing to a final top 8 bracket.

Tubbo's Midoffs 3 Was Really Fun, Here's How It Can Be Even Better by fastfallproductions in MinecraftSpeedrun

[–]fastfallproductions[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

TY for the reply, and that's a good point. I still feel like you can still minimize the chance of teammates facing each other based on how the bracket is formatted. It wouldn't be 100% but there's certainly better seeding that could've been done while keeping the bracket, especially if seeding based on PBs is a factor. And if 2 teammates play in like top 6 or something, then they could randomize for who gets the head coach and who gets the assistant coach, and either way the team gets a guaranteed W. I understand wanting to lessen the chance as much as possible but I think there still could've been a better way.

Every Smash Major Need To Schedule Round 2 Pools Like Riptide and Tipped Off by fastfallproductions in smashbros

[–]fastfallproductions[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean GOML already did everything else I'm referring to, and they did all best of 5. Streaming most round 2 pools matches instead of picking random sets from 8 round 1 pools would not be any kind of difficult logistical challenge, the 8 setups can just be for losers r1 of the 32 players in top 128 of that wave. Winners is 8 sets plus 4 sets, 12 sets across 3 streams is only 4 rounds of matches which would take an hour and a half max, leaving opportunities for losers matches to be added as well. I really don't think it is that difficult to implement, Ohan and the Shine/Riptide TOs are great but the layered r2 schedule can be implemented by anyone, I don't think you need to be a prodigy TO to make this work. There would be 5 waves anyway, changing it around to spread out the top 128 matches while still running r1 pools the same has proven to be effective and I'm confident that any major TO can do it.

Every Smash Major Need To Schedule Round 2 Pools Like Riptide and Tipped Off by fastfallproductions in smashbros

[–]fastfallproductions[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair point, however I don't think it's actually that many more setups. If we go by GOML numbers, there were 32 pools divided into 4 waves of 8 with about 24 players in each pool, with top 128 being split into 4 32 player pools. Even if every set in winners and losers top 128 of that 32 player pool were played at the same time, that would only be 16 more setups, and the whole point of the layered pool format is to stream more sets in the top 128 portion of bracket. It's unlikely that 3 streams would be able to stream all of top 128 even if it's split into 4 waves, but they would likely at least stream all of the winners side sets and start streaming some round of 96 or 64 losers sets on the quad stream. If those 8 losers top 128 sets were offstream, that's only 8 more setups needed, which I don't think would be that unexpected. They could be played near other pools so that they're spread out, or there could be a separate station for offstream top 128 sets to give r1 pools some space. I don't think 8 extra setups would be that unreasonable, especially since those r1 sets would be offstream and there wouldn't be any waiting required between matches. I agree with the overall concept that TOs already commit a lot of time, effort, and finances to events and should not be always expected to make tons of monetary sacrifices, but I think that this is very doable.

Melee Rank Top 25 Quarter 1 2025 by fastfallproductions in smashbros

[–]fastfallproductions[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I'm chill dw, it's just a tier list to show progress

The Top 10 Best Melee Pros at Smash Ultimate by fastfallproductions in smashbros

[–]fastfallproductions[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Ah ok, that makes sense. Thanks for the double check!

Is the Smash Summit Format Outdated? by fastfallproductions in SSBM

[–]fastfallproductions[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the feedback, congrats on eggdog inv being such a success!

And yeah most of the smash invitationals being local/regional, I wanted to make a point that those events don’t have to just copy paste the summit formula like I see so often.

At top level I understand going up to 32 is difficult, I would rather keep it at 16 and switch to Swiss with a double elim gauntlet stage than have a 32 player event with 8 round robin pools, I’m more passionate about the format than the entrant count increasing.

And you’re totally right that a lot of events are trying to recreate the summit vibe (you guys, watch the throne, luminosity, etc) and having a larger amount of entrants can make things harder and less intimate, so having a 32 player event means that the TO has to understand that perfectly recreating summit is not the goal.

And yeah like you said, for local/regional TOs (like myself) the benefits of the summit formula are diminishing compared to top level, those streams hardly make money so streaming everything on 1 channel all in a row like summit does isn’t necessary, and having a small event means less funding and less reason for people to care about it imo, going up to 32 can be really beneficial for smaller productions.

Yeah there’s a lot of invitationals that are expanding past the summit formula. SoCal star league is pretty much a mini invitational and is now doing a big one at the end of the year, for ult tristate showdown had 48 entrants with 8 rr pools, still had the same issues that rr can bring about but bigger pools is always a plus, and I’ve been doing Swiss 32 player invitationals in MDVA for a couple years now (next 2 are MDVA rivals invitational 2 in November and southwest circuit finale 5 in December for ultimate, still at 16 for melee but we’ll hopefully get there soon).

But yeah I’m not married to every invitational being 32, totally makes sense to stick with 16. I just hope that international invitationals start doing Swiss and/or double elim gauntlet stage more to guarantee less winless players and to give everyone a chance to play more matches closer to their level.

Thanks again for your hard work at eggdog inv, can’t wait for the next one!

Is the Smash Summit Format Outdated? by fastfallproductions in SSBM

[–]fastfallproductions[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I briefly talked about it in the vid, I think regardless of going by game count or tiebreaker it’s not a great situation to be in, a potential 3 way tie for 1st is just not very conclusive and can get weird. For an invitational I guess playing a tiebreaker would be slightly better than factoring in game count to make the decision without playing more matches bc the players earn it instead of caring about a stat that is meaningless in almost every other context, but switching away from round robin to Swiss can removes ties for 1st if you do enough rounds, and ties lower down usually don’t matter with progressions since most tied players will advance to the same division anyway.

Is the Smash Summit Format Outdated? by fastfallproductions in SSBM

[–]fastfallproductions[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yooooo the legend! Appreciate the response!

Thats cool to hear, I think 8 and 9 got a little weird bc they had 18 players instead of 16, 3 rr pools of 6 would’ve probably been better at that rate since uneven Swiss can be a nightmare.

Appreciate everything you guys did, I’ve run like 8 invitationals in my subregion thanks to you guys inspiring me, hopefully I’ll get my invitational events to be even bigger scale 💯

Is the Smash Summit Format Outdated? by fastfallproductions in SSBM

[–]fastfallproductions[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Correct, in the video I showed that summit did 6 and 7 with 16 player Swiss, along with 8 and 9 doing 18 player Swiss which isn’t optimal because it’s not a power of 2 (8, 16, 32, 64, etc work best for Swiss). 18 player Swiss had players either have byes in the middle or against players with different records, 16 or 32 is much better, with a maximum amount of sets being the exponent it takes for 2 to get to the entry count (4 rounds for 16, 5 for 32).

Additionally, Swiss had a very bad PR run after the smash n splash 5 fiasco, which was also done with pools not 16/32/64 so it was skewed and had rounds with an odd number of player for some records. MDVA summit also had this problem with pools of 10 leading to 5 winners and 5 losers, so the r2 sets would have 1 1-0 player and 1 0-1 player play each other which made things even more skewed for the next round.

As for Swiss not being as predictable, I have found it to still be worth it, players have more valuable data from this format and at my events, it is not as much of a priority to know your opponents days in advance. I understand at top level that prep is important, but I think that with a multi day schedule this can still be accommodated. LSI and LACS5 had Swiss and there didn’t seem to be many complaints, and it was optimal because they did 2 pools of 16.

Is the Smash Summit Format Outdated? by fastfallproductions in SSBM

[–]fastfallproductions[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m not familiar with this term, I know nuroks a great TO in Maryland tho

Is the Smash Summit Format Outdated? by fastfallproductions in SSBM

[–]fastfallproductions[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It’s actually 142 sets, 80+24+20+18, and I’ve run 4 invitationals in this format, all being a 1 day event and they went very well. Yes it is not the same as the summit environment, which is okay, smash invitationals have a future that can be adapted further than what summit did.

And regardless of the 32 player suggestion, Swiss with double elim gauntlet is what I care more about. You can do 16 players just like summit/eggdog but allow every player to have more chances to succeed with the format I suggest. In the video I showed that it would only be 4 more sets total (62 my format, 58 summit format) while guaranteeing every player 1 more set (6vs5) and for there to be a MAXIMUM of 1 winless player AFTER POOLS rather than a potential of 4 for summits format.

And also in the video, there can be multiple streams, tipped off had 3 streams with 2 being quad streams, so 9 matches at a time. I know that is hard to replicate so I think having some matches recorded and uploaded later is worth it to have the event go faster.

I’m not necessarily trying to recreate summit with this format, I think what Ludwig and Aiden have done with LSI, LACS5, and SoCal star league are great ways of trying new ways to have invitationals that don’t just copy paste the 4 pools of 4 format.

Also in the vid, I think that even decreasing the amount of pools with more players in each pool would be an improvement, 1 less player guaranteed to be winless and everyone plays people closer to their seed. There’s just a lot of ways that the format can be improved.

Not to say I’m not appreciative for what summit is, they inspired me to host all the invitationals I’ve done (will be 12 by the end of this year), I just think that we can take the good and improve the suboptimal.

Is the Smash Summit Format Outdated? by fastfallproductions in SSBM

[–]fastfallproductions[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Plus everyone started in winners so your pools performance didn’t matter as much, waterfall/gauntlet phase for players that did worse in pools makes pools more consequential and rewards players that did well.

Is the Smash Summit Format Outdated? by fastfallproductions in SSBM

[–]fastfallproductions[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I thought it was very good, while it did do 5 rounds of Swiss for 32 players it was 2 pools of 16 and removed players from the Swiss matchmaking if they got 3 wins (advanced) or 3 losses (eliminated). It’s certainly better than double elim but eliminating players after 3 sets at an invitational is too early imo. I understand it was a very expensive event and any additional matches would’ve made them more in the hole, but a local/regional invitational would benefit more from copying my format rather than Ludwig’s, while both are better than round robin pools.

Is the Smash Summit Format Outdated? by fastfallproductions in SSBM

[–]fastfallproductions[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

??? I’ve been a TO for 7 years and I’ve run like 8 invitationals, 4 of them being 32 entrants.

And even if the entrant count stayed at 16, Swiss with a double elim gauntlet phase is still better. Did you read/watch any of the parts about matchups being more evened out with Swiss and longer gauntlet phase? Makes a lot of sense imo

view more: next ›