You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
1

[–] Vansen [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I should've added this as a question ://

Both could work pretty well, but thinking about it, round robin (every team would play every team iirc) would probably be better. Not only does it mean it's as fair as can be (so not punishing people if they play bad in only one game for example), but we can declare an ultimate winning team at the end of it, rather than just who's at the top of the table. However, if there's lots of players/teams, then a league table could possibly work better, as round robin with lots of teams would create lots of games.

0
0

[–] IdSay ago 

the way i see it:

round robin: luck based (unless someone tries to draw the brackets, so tougher people fight more teams), since essentially, one bad match can make the worst team go to the finals. it's a party game/gimmick if anything, which is okay.

league format: more thorough, but more time/energy consuming, and more competetive, but less random/exciting to follow.

0
0

[–] Vansen [S] ago  (edited ago)

I don't really understand how round robin in luck based. If memory serves, a round robin sees everyone play against everyone at least once, which in theory should dismiss luck as a factor because if a team has one bad game, they're not going to be knocked out of the tournament entirely because of it. Instead, the one bad game is chalked up, but their performance overall will prevail.

I agree that a league format is kinda boring, but it might be easier if there's a lot of people. Much easier organisation.